Barrel Torque Ludicrocity
- Thread starter Ronin22
- Start date
You should know that being that you're from TX....the home of a "Bowl of Red"
They are there to give to the Yankees for when they make sub-par chili
Yes…chili is meat and chili con carne is a redundant statement
Just to ask a question…. Not my rifle, but over the years, I have handled some lovely takedown guns from the likes of Holland And Holland and Rigby. And their barrels all fit in place with very light hand pressure.
Some have interrupted threads that “ramp” into position and lock. Some, like this one, screw in.
These guns tend to be very accurate (commensurate with their pedigree and price tag) at least in the context of big (and small) game hunting. They also use some very large calibers!!!
Now no one is shooting them 1000 yards. Or all day to the tune of 100’s of rounds. And you are talking about accuracy that was for big game hunting (the ‘guide test’ given to the hunters in safari was often hitting their empty 4”x4” British cigarette package at 50 yards… typically open sights.) So we are talking minutes wildebeest here.
But curious how this technology does or does not contribute to the (excellent) discussion?
Cheers!
Sirhr
PS. Yes, I am asking Fudd questions here… but engineering fascinates me!
Some have interrupted threads that “ramp” into position and lock. Some, like this one, screw in.
These guns tend to be very accurate (commensurate with their pedigree and price tag) at least in the context of big (and small) game hunting. They also use some very large calibers!!!
Now no one is shooting them 1000 yards. Or all day to the tune of 100’s of rounds. And you are talking about accuracy that was for big game hunting (the ‘guide test’ given to the hunters in safari was often hitting their empty 4”x4” British cigarette package at 50 yards… typically open sights.) So we are talking minutes wildebeest here.
But curious how this technology does or does not contribute to the (excellent) discussion?
Cheers!
Sirhr
PS. Yes, I am asking Fudd questions here… but engineering fascinates me!
I needed a laugh, and I haven't stopped LOL
Thanks everyone
Mike R.
Thanks everyone
Mike R.
I ended up shaking loose 30 ft pounds… but i run my rifles hard… that's on me… i figure if i can't run them hard… what the fuck is the point. Anyway… i do have a woox chassis I baby now… because she's purdy. Maybe I'll do 30 pounds on that one and not run it like a Marine taking a 300 pound desert yeti home for the night and see how she keeps.
It seems to me that the answer really is 42… ft-lbs for the low torque crowd and yard-pounds for the high torque crowd…. And mile pounds for Mike.
I torqued barrel to 90 ft/lb. Still getting the little click at the top of the otherwise-normal bolt lift using handloads
Barrel has 2300+ rounds on it and throat has normal amount of erosion... Looking back at records, velocity has fallen off a bit - but I also just got into a new jug of H4350... no degradation of accuracy. Comparing otherwise-identical rounds loaded with the two different powder lots, the new jug is ~15-20 fps slower.
Anyway. Now I'll have a more-gooder time swapping out that barrel...
skimmed thru a lot of this...some interesting stuff
a question for the mech engineers/gunsmiths
is it possible individuals different experiences with torque values and how they perform are due to the variations in individual barrel to action thread fit? i dont know how large the tolerances there are, or how those tolerances affect things at different torque values
shooter A has a barrel/action that fit like a glove...hand tight gets him by
shooter B has a barrel on the small end of spec w/ an action on the large end...he sees inconsistency/shifts until he torques north of 50, 75, etc ft-lbs?
are there large enough variations there to cause discrepancies?
ive always torqued my normal actions to 75ft-lbs...its tight enough i can slam the barrel into the bench and it doesnt shift or move so i never worried about it
My AIAT however, factory spec on the torque screw is 49in-lbs i think...and that worked fine for a while. But after some use and multiple barrels from multiple smiths...i noticed some inconsistency (random fliers, cold bore shots off further than norm)...i went to check if my barrel was tight and grabbed it by the break and i could spin it by hand in the action. I checked torque on the lock screw...it was good...i could still put the rifle stock between my knees and spin the barrel if i tried hard enough. i had probably 4-5 barrels and north of 100+ barrel swaps because at the time i would rotate them all the time depending on what i had reloaded on the shelf
so i cranked it up to 65in-lbs, and used that going forward and never had another issue (north of 15 barrels by now). i just assumed either barrel threads slightly on the small side and/or some stretch in the action thread/lock screw threads/etc...something. and the additional torque solved it. thats really been my only experience with needing more torque, although...different action design
a question for the mech engineers/gunsmiths
is it possible individuals different experiences with torque values and how they perform are due to the variations in individual barrel to action thread fit? i dont know how large the tolerances there are, or how those tolerances affect things at different torque values
shooter A has a barrel/action that fit like a glove...hand tight gets him by
shooter B has a barrel on the small end of spec w/ an action on the large end...he sees inconsistency/shifts until he torques north of 50, 75, etc ft-lbs?
are there large enough variations there to cause discrepancies?
ive always torqued my normal actions to 75ft-lbs...its tight enough i can slam the barrel into the bench and it doesnt shift or move so i never worried about it
My AIAT however, factory spec on the torque screw is 49in-lbs i think...and that worked fine for a while. But after some use and multiple barrels from multiple smiths...i noticed some inconsistency (random fliers, cold bore shots off further than norm)...i went to check if my barrel was tight and grabbed it by the break and i could spin it by hand in the action. I checked torque on the lock screw...it was good...i could still put the rifle stock between my knees and spin the barrel if i tried hard enough. i had probably 4-5 barrels and north of 100+ barrel swaps because at the time i would rotate them all the time depending on what i had reloaded on the shelf
so i cranked it up to 65in-lbs, and used that going forward and never had another issue (north of 15 barrels by now). i just assumed either barrel threads slightly on the small side and/or some stretch in the action thread/lock screw threads/etc...something. and the additional torque solved it. thats really been my only experience with needing more torque, although...different action design
Largely I agree with your statement's intent here. Shocking right?
We all know you have some beef with me, but I will remind you that this particular area of expertise happens to be within my realm of study as both an engineer and a gun plumber. I also stated a summary early on in this thread about why I make the recommendations for barrel torque that I do. This is probably why several of the action makers that are quoted in this thread are quoting values that ultimately came from data that I gathered 10+ years ago and it's been serving their customers well for a decade. Zermatt and ARC most specifically, however that same recommended data has been given to the shop that makes Curtis, used to make Terminus, the shop that currently makes Terminus, and several others.
A point of note where I want to clarify something:
We already know things like how 5/8 of threading has a tendency to open the bore up vs 3/4 threading.
I disagree with this statement as it's made because it's propagating a partial truth. The data that cemented this "understanding" was from a 2010-era article in the old rag "Precision Shooting" magazine. It was authored by Robert Whitley and the gunsmithing work was performed by Fred Szablewski (sp?) from Zabreko (again, sp?). The test article barrels were a take-off Rem 700 that Whitley had Fred removing from a 700 for rebarreling and the new Kreiger that Fred was to install on Robert's action. At the time it came out I spent probably 45 mins on the phone with Mark Gordon discussing why we both felt the article was a flawed test.
The old 700 factory barrel was threaded 5/8-24 and pin gauged. It expanded approximately 1.5 thousandths as I recall.
The new Kreiger blank was threaded 3/4-24 and pin gauged. It did not change measurably.
As I recall they then cut back the 700 barrel and threaded it again with the larger thread. It moved, but far less.
The 700 barrel used was a common contour, something around a Sendero/Med Palma, which is about 0.820 OD where it was threaded, so the removed material for the 5/8 vs 3/4 test makes a lot of sense why that particular POS moved less when less material was removed. There was a bunch of stress in the material due to the source of the blank itself.
Whitley's summary was that not only should we be using 3/4 thread instead of 5/8 it should also be 3/4-28 instead of 3/4-24 to minimize the thread depth. It also just so happened that he had a line of muzzle devices for sale on his website that were in 3/4-28.
I've recreated that test using high end barrel slugs from drops that we have in the shop, of which I have no shortage. It's been done several times, once with another gunsmith watching me (the late Keith Weil) and marveling at how fast the CNC's do their jobs. What we have found every time is that a properly stress relieved barrel doesn't move like the way the craptastic 700 barrel did in Whitley's article. I've talked to Whitley about it once when I saw him at our rifle club. He wasn't exactly receptive to the idea that there was a potential flaw in his "experiment".
Basically all that Whitley proved is that Rem factory barrels aren't stress relieved properly. It's not a new concept for machinists. We learn early on that when you take rolled steel or extruded aluminum that will finish with a hollow shape you need to blow out most of the internal material before finishing the OD to size. If you don't it's highly likely that the OD will collapse and be undersize as soon as you relieve that bore internally.
More than a couple of "experienced smiths" that you trust over an engineer on this topic continue to push this narrative even though they don't understand it well enough to realize the test was flawed. Or, they're not even aware of this article's existence and they have never tried it for themselves on a top shelf barrel.
I have the benefit of being experienced as an engineer and as a barrel maker... oh, and I have a pilot's license too. It doesn't matter in this case but pilots like to tell people that we're pilots so I gotta throw that in here
Yeah, there is a difference in how the thread fit will affect the torque though it's minimal. The more important factor is the quality of the thread machining and the thread lubricant as both of those factors will affect the "k" factor in the T=kFd equation I talked about a couple pages ago. The variation in "d" on thread fit is small compared to the variation in "k" due to machine work quality and lubrication properties.
However, the AIAT experience that you're talking about is slightly different. Your screw torque has to change as the thread form gets smaller from different shops because that clamp screw is closing down essentially a collar clamp around the barrel like a reloading die gets a set ring on it. If the threads are smaller then you need to put some extra torque into the screw to close the clamp down further. The overall torque on the screw increases because you're closing the clamp ring first and then clamping the barrel thread the way the design was intended.
Holy Shit! (To the post content)Largely I agree with your statement's intent here. Shocking right?
We all know you have some beef with me, but I will remind you that this particular area of expertise happens to be within my realm of study as both an engineer and a gun plumber. I also stated a summary early on in this thread about why I make the recommendations for barrel torque that I do. This is probably why several of the action makers that are quoted in this thread are quoting values that ultimately came from data that I gathered 10+ years ago and it's been serving their customers well for a decade. Zermatt and ARC most specifically, however that same recommended data has been given to the shop that makes Curtis, used to make Terminus, the shop that currently makes Terminus, and several others.
A point of note where I want to clarify something:
We already know things like how 5/8 of threading has a tendency to open the bore up vs 3/4 threading.
I disagree with this statement as it's made because it's propagating a partial truth. The data that cemented this "understanding" was from a 2010-era article in the old rag "Precision Shooting" magazine. It was authored by Robert Whitley and the gunsmithing work was performed by Fred Szablewski (sp?) from Zabreko (again, sp?). The test article barrels were a take-off Rem 700 that Whitley had Fred removing from a 700 for rebarreling and the new Kreiger that Fred was to install on Robert's action. At the time it came out I spent probably 45 mins on the phone with Mark Gordon discussing why we both felt the article was a flawed test.
The old 700 factory barrel was threaded 5/8-24 and pin gauged. It expanded approximately 1.5 thousandths as I recall.
The new Kreiger blank was threaded 3/4-24 and pin gauged. It did not change measurably.
As I recall they then cut back the 700 barrel and threaded it again with the larger thread. It moved, but far less.
The 700 barrel used was a common contour, something around a Sendero/Med Palma, which is about 0.820 OD where it was threaded, so the removed material for the 5/8 vs 3/4 test makes a lot of sense why that particular POS moved less when less material was removed. There was a bunch of stress in the material due to the source of the blank itself.
Whitley's summary was that not only should we be using 3/4 thread instead of 5/8 it should also be 3/4-28 instead of 3/4-24 to minimize the thread depth. It also just so happened that he had a line of muzzle devices for sale on his website that were in 3/4-28.
I've recreated that test using high end barrel slugs from drops that we have in the shop, of which I have no shortage. It's been done several times, once with another gunsmith watching me (the late Keith Weil) and marveling at how fast the CNC's do their jobs. What we have found every time is that a properly stress relieved barrel doesn't move like the way the craptastic 700 barrel did in Whitley's article. I've talked to Whitley about it once when I saw him at our rifle club. He wasn't exactly receptive to the idea that there was a potential flaw in his "experiment".
Basically all that Whitley proved is that Rem factory barrels aren't stress relieved properly. It's not a new concept for machinists. We learn early on that when you take rolled steel or extruded aluminum that will finish with a hollow shape you need to blow out most of the internal material before finishing the OD to size. If you don't it's highly likely that the OD will collapse and be undersize as soon as you relieve that bore internally.
More than a couple of "experienced smiths" that you trust over an engineer on this topic continue to push this narrative even though they don't understand it well enough to realize the test was flawed. Or, they're not even aware of this article's existence and they have never tried it for themselves on a top shelf barrel.
I have the benefit of being experienced as an engineer and as a barrel maker... oh, and I have a pilot's license too. It doesn't matter in this case but pilots like to tell people that we're pilots so I gotta throw that in here
Yeah, there is a difference in how the thread fit will affect the torque though it's minimal. The more important factor is the quality of the thread machining and the thread lubricant as both of those factors will affect the "k" factor in the T=kFd equation I talked about a couple pages ago. The variation in "d" on thread fit is small compared to the variation in "k" due to machine work quality and lubrication properties.
However, the AIAT experience that you're talking about is slightly different. Your screw torque has to change as the thread form gets smaller from different shops because that clamp screw is closing down essentially a collar clamp around the barrel like a reloading die gets a set ring on it. If the threads are smaller then you need to put some extra torque into the screw to close the clamp down further. The overall torque on the screw increases because you're closing the clamp ring first and then clamping the barrel thread the way the design was intended.
I also LOL when you brought up the pilot joke and replaced with engineer! "How can you tell if someone is a _______? They'll tell you!
Last edited:
And people call me a pot stirrer, Ronin. Pshaw. I got nothing!
How do you know when a date with a pilot is half over?
When she says, “Enough about me, let me tell you about my airplane.”
How do you know when a date with a pilot is half over?
When she says, “Enough about me, let me tell you about my airplane.”
I have had a Shilen ratchet barrel open up considerably after threading 5/8-24. It is in one of the Vudoo 22 threads around here.Largely I agree with your statement's intent here. Shocking right?
We all know you have some beef with me, but I will remind you that this particular area of expertise happens to be within my realm of study as both an engineer and a gun plumber. I also stated a summary early on in this thread about why I make the recommendations for barrel torque that I do. This is probably why several of the action makers that are quoted in this thread are quoting values that ultimately came from data that I gathered 10+ years ago and it's been serving their customers well for a decade. Zermatt and ARC most specifically, however that same recommended data has been given to the shop that makes Curtis, used to make Terminus, the shop that currently makes Terminus, and several others.
A point of note where I want to clarify something:
We already know things like how 5/8 of threading has a tendency to open the bore up vs 3/4 threading.
I disagree with this statement as it's made because it's propagating a partial truth. The data that cemented this "understanding" was from a 2010-era article in the old rag "Precision Shooting" magazine. It was authored by Robert Whitley and the gunsmithing work was performed by Fred Szablewski (sp?) from Zabreko (again, sp?). The test article barrels were a take-off Rem 700 that Whitley had Fred removing from a 700 for rebarreling and the new Kreiger that Fred was to install on Robert's action. At the time it came out I spent probably 45 mins on the phone with Mark Gordon discussing why we both felt the article was a flawed test.
The old 700 factory barrel was threaded 5/8-24 and pin gauged. It expanded approximately 1.5 thousandths as I recall.
The new Kreiger blank was threaded 3/4-24 and pin gauged. It did not change measurably.
As I recall they then cut back the 700 barrel and threaded it again with the larger thread. It moved, but far less.
The 700 barrel used was a common contour, something around a Sendero/Med Palma, which is about 0.820 OD where it was threaded, so the removed material for the 5/8 vs 3/4 test makes a lot of sense why that particular POS moved less when less material was removed. There was a bunch of stress in the material due to the source of the blank itself.
Whitley's summary was that not only should we be using 3/4 thread instead of 5/8 it should also be 3/4-28 instead of 3/4-24 to minimize the thread depth. It also just so happened that he had a line of muzzle devices for sale on his website that were in 3/4-28.
I've recreated that test using high end barrel slugs from drops that we have in the shop, of which I have no shortage. It's been done several times, once with another gunsmith watching me (the late Keith Weil) and marveling at how fast the CNC's do their jobs. What we have found every time is that a properly stress relieved barrel doesn't move like the way the craptastic 700 barrel did in Whitley's article. I've talked to Whitley about it once when I saw him at our rifle club. He wasn't exactly receptive to the idea that there was a potential flaw in his "experiment".
Basically all that Whitley proved is that Rem factory barrels aren't stress relieved properly. It's not a new concept for machinists. We learn early on that when you take rolled steel or extruded aluminum that will finish with a hollow shape you need to blow out most of the internal material before finishing the OD to size. If you don't it's highly likely that the OD will collapse and be undersize as soon as you relieve that bore internally.
More than a couple of "experienced smiths" that you trust over an engineer on this topic continue to push this narrative even though they don't understand it well enough to realize the test was flawed. Or, they're not even aware of this article's existence and they have never tried it for themselves on a top shelf barrel.
I have the benefit of being experienced as an engineer and as a barrel maker... oh, and I have a pilot's license too. It doesn't matter in this case but pilots like to tell people that we're pilots so I gotta throw that in here
Yeah, there is a difference in how the thread fit will affect the torque though it's minimal. The more important factor is the quality of the thread machining and the thread lubricant as both of those factors will affect the "k" factor in the T=kFd equation I talked about a couple pages ago. The variation in "d" on thread fit is small compared to the variation in "k" due to machine work quality and lubrication properties.
However, the AIAT experience that you're talking about is slightly different. Your screw torque has to change as the thread form gets smaller from different shops because that clamp screw is closing down essentially a collar clamp around the barrel like a reloading die gets a set ring on it. If the threads are smaller then you need to put some extra torque into the screw to close the clamp down further. The overall torque on the screw increases because you're closing the clamp ring first and then clamping the barrel thread the way the design was intended.
I have also done a pile of bartlein barrels mixed with a few kreigers that have been fine with similar material being removed.
“There was a bunch of stress in the material due to the source of the blank itself.”
The above is key as everything is not a one size fits all solution.
One of the many reasons to use a single point cut barrel. Less stress on the barrel than a button.
Some of the smartest shooters I know, some being machinists by trade and sitting at 300 points, run 3/4 threads for a reason. I think we even chatted about it at a match. Its just one less variable to worry about in a game of managing hundreds/thousands of variables.
Josh beat me to most of what I was going to say, specifically that surface finish of the threads (a very important part of the K factor in T = KDF) is far more important than a bit of deviation in the pitch diameter of the threads when it comes to the torque needed to establish a desired preload and stabilize the threaded joint.
However, I will mention that better thread fit / a more closely matched pitch diameter can help (especially in the case of the AI quicklock for reasons that Josh mentioned) but keep in mind even a barrel tenon thread that the gunsmith matched to be a very close fit to your exact action threads is still going to have at least a few tenths of clearance otherwise it's going to lock up... and that few tenths of clearance in the threads over say 1" of tenon length is going to translate to quite a bit of deviation at the muzzle and at the target. That barrel shoulder has to be pulled up tight to the action face, remain there during firing, and return to the same spot after firing for consistent grouping. That's why we want everything in the action face, action threads, barrel threads, and barrel shoulder as square and flat as possible as well as tension and preload in that joint.
For a rough example, let's say you have 0.0005" clearance in the tenon threads and 1" of total tenon length, and you don't snug the barrel fully up to the shoulder. Now the barrel sags slightly under gravity to take up that clearance. That 0.0005" of clearance over 1" of tenon length is 0.0286 degrees of sag compared to pulling the shoulder of the barrel up tight to the action, or in units shooters are more used to seeing... 1.719 MOA. So if you put a bit of upwards pressure near the muzzle to take out that sag from the 0.0005" clearance in the threads you can shift your POI by 1.719 MOA. That's why keeping the barrel shoulder tight to the action is critical as it only takes tenths of movement in that threaded tenon to create a large change in POI.
Of course, the big question in this thread is how much torque is needed to maintain that stable barrel to action relationship in all conditions. The math says that 100, 150, 200, or even 250 ft-lbs isn't going to yield the threads on a fully annealed 416 stainless barrel, but what's the minimum torque needed for repeatability and stability in field use conditions?
Josh did some testing and determined around 60-70 ft-lbs minimum was needed. Others say 30-40 ft-lbs is all that is needed and works for them. 75-100-125 ft-lbs seems to be a pretty standard range given by several action manufacturers today. Back in the 90s AI specified 136 Nm / 100 ft-lbs for the M27 threads on the AW and AE and 163 Nm / 120 ft-lbs for the M30 threads in the AWM. Anyone who has removed a barrel from a factory assembled R700, Winchester, Tikka, etc, knows they are far tighter than that. Mike at Tac Ops tightens his barrels so tight that whomever removes one is immediately crowned the King of England (sorry, No Kings here in the USA, we had protests and everything.)
I know that the argument will be that some benchrest shooters make tiny groups with hand tight barrels, but they are in a repeatable environment on a bench, they get sighters before shooting for groups, and after those sighters they rapidly shoot a group and they're done for that round. Hand tight can and does work for that specific use situation. Now take a hand snug/tight barrel into the field, carry it around for a weekend, smack a few tree branches with the barrel while carrying it, plop it down hard on barricades, hit the side of the barrel on a window frame, take it out in the morning when it's in the 30s and then shoot it later in the afternoon in the 80s, etc, and let me know how it groups and how consistent the POI is over the weekend. (Hint: only hand tight is why several prefit makers won't guarantee accuracy on a prefit for a hand tight + setscrew lock QC style curtis action.)
Regarding your AI quicklock experience of better groups with increased torque... while I think the AI quick change system is one of the better if not the best quick change barrel system on the market, I still don't trust it as much as regular threads torqued to 100ish ft-lbs... you know, how AI used to make them. I've seen a couple of examples on ATs and AXs where a bit of epoxy used for bedding got under and into the H-cut in the action for the quicklock and prevented it from closing around the barrel threads properly even with correct torque on the quicklock pinch bolt. Even when there's no epoxy in the H-cut people such as yourself have reported increasing the torque on the quicklock screw over the AI book value of 49 in-lb improved cold bore consistency and decreased group sizes.
More random thoughts on the AI quicklock system... years ago I experimented on an AT by shooting groups with the normal hand tight barrel + tightening the quicklock screw compared to torquing the barrel to 25 ft-lbs and also 50 ft-lbs before tightening the quicklock screw, and with some testing I noticed a small decrease in cold bore shot deviation as well as slightly smaller group sizes when smacking the barrel near the muzzle with a rubber mallet between every shot with the barrel that was torqued to 50 ft-lbs before tightening the quicklock screw. Personally, I'm not someone who swaps my barrels constantly, so I'd prefer my AIs to be non-quicklock and go back to non-H cut actions and using the old standard action wrench and barrel vise method to swap barrels as in my opinion it's a more robust method of barrel attachment... but that contract requirement requiring quick change barrels in the field and the consumer market have spoken, and I'm in the minority.
Can we can go back to arguing about chili now?
The action is not a bolt. Putting extreme torque on the lugs via action wrench is probably not the best idea. I have chipped the edges of action wrenches (hardened steel) trying to get factory Tikka's off and they are around 150-200. Are you going to switch to an external action wrench every time you remove a barrel? I'm sure as fuck not.
Whats more likely? Damaging something by being a retarded gorilla or a gun shooting loose at a lessor tq value. There is zero difference in how the gun shoots between 30 and 100. A gun is not going to come loose at 30 ft lbs no matter how you treat it. At a 2 day match shooting between 250-300 rounds with hot/cold cycles they will not come loose at all. I might even go down to 20 next season just to prove a point.
Maybe you are using shitty barrels with poor fitment because the smith is incapable of cutting a barrel to print, cant cut to 3A tolerances and is to cheap to buy a set of ring gauges for common tenon threads.
This is where we see people who are installing and uninstalling barrels weekly and those who do it once every few years. Maybe its a big deal to you, but there is zero reason to make life more difficult installing and uninstalling barrels. Engineers and nerds living in a theory fantasy land vs people who do this shit all the time and see the results.
And no Josh I don't have beef with you I just don't respect you as a gunsmith. I have seen too many examples of your shitty work to put much value in anything you say. And I have seen you make up shit that I know is false downplaying issues. I got burned twice and I am right in your backyard and wouldn't take your product if it was free. And its not just me. MANY competitive shooters share the same opinion. Rimfire and centerfire. I wasn't going to call you out but since you asked....
And I am not targeting you and its not personal. There are other "well known" smiths in this region and outside who are the same deal. One of the nice things about burning up a bunch of barrels is figuring out who is worth spending money with. What tubes are worth buying and what smiths can cut a chamber correctly. Same with your buddies who you shoot and talk with. There are guys I like personally but would never trust to touch my gun.
Here is some lovely chambering work on 2 brand new bartlien 1.25"s I had done by a well known regional smith recently. He is a nice guy too but probably the last time I use him. They seem to shoot decent so far (not broken in yet) but would you pay for this kind of work?
Whats more likely? Damaging something by being a retarded gorilla or a gun shooting loose at a lessor tq value. There is zero difference in how the gun shoots between 30 and 100. A gun is not going to come loose at 30 ft lbs no matter how you treat it. At a 2 day match shooting between 250-300 rounds with hot/cold cycles they will not come loose at all. I might even go down to 20 next season just to prove a point.
Maybe you are using shitty barrels with poor fitment because the smith is incapable of cutting a barrel to print, cant cut to 3A tolerances and is to cheap to buy a set of ring gauges for common tenon threads.
This is where we see people who are installing and uninstalling barrels weekly and those who do it once every few years. Maybe its a big deal to you, but there is zero reason to make life more difficult installing and uninstalling barrels. Engineers and nerds living in a theory fantasy land vs people who do this shit all the time and see the results.
And no Josh I don't have beef with you I just don't respect you as a gunsmith. I have seen too many examples of your shitty work to put much value in anything you say. And I have seen you make up shit that I know is false downplaying issues. I got burned twice and I am right in your backyard and wouldn't take your product if it was free. And its not just me. MANY competitive shooters share the same opinion. Rimfire and centerfire. I wasn't going to call you out but since you asked....
And I am not targeting you and its not personal. There are other "well known" smiths in this region and outside who are the same deal. One of the nice things about burning up a bunch of barrels is figuring out who is worth spending money with. What tubes are worth buying and what smiths can cut a chamber correctly. Same with your buddies who you shoot and talk with. There are guys I like personally but would never trust to touch my gun.
Here is some lovely chambering work on 2 brand new bartlien 1.25"s I had done by a well known regional smith recently. He is a nice guy too but probably the last time I use him. They seem to shoot decent so far (not broken in yet) but would you pay for this kind of work?
Attachments
Last edited:
Nothing about the minuscule amount of torque that 150ft/lbs is, is extreme.
Similar threads
