Can anyone truthfully say that the "chasing the threads" step of the blueprint stage really effects accuracy. I know everybody does it when they get a new barrel job, but is it a neccessity or a fad..(like an oversize recoil lug). I understand the squaring of the lugs embutment and the truing up of the recoil lug and the receiver face. Also the bolt face but I can't understand how the recutting of the threads. Please don't say yes it help becuase that is what you've been told or becuase you make alot of money be doing it. Thanks Trent.
Gunsmithing Importance or Blueprinting
- Thread starter summitsitter
- Start date
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
For starters, if the OEM threads are;
Concentric
Have zero taper in them
Not off set
They were cut with a tool set at the right angle
Have no chatter
Perpendicular to the Receiver Face and Lug Abutments
Then yes, they'll be fine.
There are those that will argue the point and give advice based on what they’ve read or have been told.
I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night so, I feel pretty solid on what I'm saying
For starters, if the OEM threads are;
Concentric
Have zero taper in them
Not off set
They were cut with a tool set at the right angle
Have no chatter
Perpendicular to the Receiver Face and Lug Abutments
Then yes, they'll be fine.
There are those that will argue the point and give advice based on what they’ve read or have been told.
I stayed in a Holiday Inn last night so, I feel pretty solid on what I'm saying
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
Roscoe I understand all that but really how much difference does it make. I understand that people who spend a ton of money want every little thing done to them that has any chance of making them more accurate, and I don't blame them for that. I don't see how there is any info proving that it is more accurate. In logic it is but is there anyway to prove it in the real world.
Roscoe I understand all that but really how much difference does it make. I understand that people who spend a ton of money want every little thing done to them that has any chance of making them more accurate, and I don't blame them for that. I don't see how there is any info proving that it is more accurate. In logic it is but is there anyway to prove it in the real world.
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
No way to "prove" it, but I am sure it enhances accuracy. I do it as a matter of course if the client wants it. I do believe it aids accuracy. Makes the difference between a 1/2" and a 1/4" gun. I even know a few guys who blueprint the engines on their race cars. Why, cause it gives them an edge.
No way to "prove" it, but I am sure it enhances accuracy. I do it as a matter of course if the client wants it. I do believe it aids accuracy. Makes the difference between a 1/2" and a 1/4" gun. I even know a few guys who blueprint the engines on their race cars. Why, cause it gives them an edge.
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
I can see blueprinting an engine. There is a way to prove it. Dyno it and see if it helped. I work with a ton of engineers and I hate the "well it works on paper" stuff. Without proven evidence how do we know it helps. I'm not trying to second guess anyone or prove anything..I am jsut one of those prove it to me guys..Sorry..
I can see blueprinting an engine. There is a way to prove it. Dyno it and see if it helped. I work with a ton of engineers and I hate the "well it works on paper" stuff. Without proven evidence how do we know it helps. I'm not trying to second guess anyone or prove anything..I am jsut one of those prove it to me guys..Sorry..
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
This should make it easy....
You have the barrel out and the weapon all in pieces, you care about how it goes back together.
Chasing the threads is a detail.
I don't miss any details.
BTW, the next time you take the barrel out you will be VERY VERY happy that you chased the threads.
This should make it easy....
You have the barrel out and the weapon all in pieces, you care about how it goes back together.
Chasing the threads is a detail.
I don't miss any details.
BTW, the next time you take the barrel out you will be VERY VERY happy that you chased the threads.
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: summitsitter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Roscoe I understand all that but really how much difference does it make. I understand that people who spend a ton of money want every little thing done to them that has any chance of making them more accurate, and I don't blame them for that. I don't see how there is any info proving that it is more accurate. In logic it is but is there anyway to prove it in the real world. </div></div>
When I started single point truing receivers I was blown away by how bad they actually were. From that point forward I decided I wouldn’t chamber a barrel for them unless they were trued by me or someone else. My name goes on them so they’re going to be the best they can be. I can’t deliver a rifle that may not be up to its full potential. Why would I or anyone else maintain tolerances of .0002” or less when chambering barrels to just screw them on a box stock OEM receiver?
There are guys out there that’ll spin a barrel on without giving the receiver or OEM recoil lug a second thought; I’m just not one of them. I’ve yet to find an OEM receiver that wasn’t off in some manner so when asked “Is it really necessary to true a receiver” I’m going to say yes, every time.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: summitsitter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Roscoe I understand all that but really how much difference does it make. I understand that people who spend a ton of money want every little thing done to them that has any chance of making them more accurate, and I don't blame them for that. I don't see how there is any info proving that it is more accurate. In logic it is but is there anyway to prove it in the real world. </div></div>
When I started single point truing receivers I was blown away by how bad they actually were. From that point forward I decided I wouldn’t chamber a barrel for them unless they were trued by me or someone else. My name goes on them so they’re going to be the best they can be. I can’t deliver a rifle that may not be up to its full potential. Why would I or anyone else maintain tolerances of .0002” or less when chambering barrels to just screw them on a box stock OEM receiver?
There are guys out there that’ll spin a barrel on without giving the receiver or OEM recoil lug a second thought; I’m just not one of them. I’ve yet to find an OEM receiver that wasn’t off in some manner so when asked “Is it really necessary to true a receiver” I’m going to say yes, every time.
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
Bottom line is this...........At the end of the day, I know my machining isn’t suspect, in any way.
Bottom line is this...........At the end of the day, I know my machining isn’t suspect, in any way.
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
Roscoe I understand where your coming from your name is on it so you every possible variable covered. Realistically how many .001's would you say a action needs to be to be blueprinted. (Where it makes a difference).
Roscoe I understand where your coming from your name is on it so you every possible variable covered. Realistically how many .001's would you say a action needs to be to be blueprinted. (Where it makes a difference).
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
It really depends on how bad the receiver is to start with. Some take less, some take more. An average is going from an OEM opening of 1.0625" to anywhere from 1.0725" to 1.085". I really try to keep it at or less than 1.0725" but some are beyond that.
As long as the threads are concentric to the bolt raceway and perpendicular to the receiver face and lugs everything else is good.
Unless a person really understands how to tune ammo to the rifle and shoot it, he'll never realize the good from any of it. We just have to deliver a rifle that’s ready for the challenge, regardless of the situation it’s put in.
It really depends on how bad the receiver is to start with. Some take less, some take more. An average is going from an OEM opening of 1.0625" to anywhere from 1.0725" to 1.085". I really try to keep it at or less than 1.0725" but some are beyond that.
As long as the threads are concentric to the bolt raceway and perpendicular to the receiver face and lugs everything else is good.
Unless a person really understands how to tune ammo to the rifle and shoot it, he'll never realize the good from any of it. We just have to deliver a rifle that’s ready for the challenge, regardless of the situation it’s put in.
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
I think a "race car" analogy might help with this.
I worked for an engine builder that specialized in no BS straight up NHRA Pro Class-Pro Stock and Sportsman class- Competition Eliminator engines back in the early/mid 90's.
Back then a good Pro Stock engine threw down around 1200hp at the flywheel. The rules are orchestrated so that a person can only do so much to the engine/car. The best driver in the world isn't going to win many races if he's 100hp down from the rest of the field so the car has to be wrung out if one hopes to take a "Wally" home.
Finding 10/20 hp means a great deal in this arena since the playing field is essentially equal for the most part. But on a street car who really cares? Many will gladly give up 30hp if it means the AC works in July.
So apply this to guns. If your searching for those last "ten HP" that can potentially make the difference when running with the top ten percent of shooters then absolutely, every single thing a smith can do to scrunch those shot groups is going to pay off with a potential win.
Use this as the barometer against your personal level of commitment when it comes to shooting. If your spending top dollar and only the best will do then sure. If not, save the money and spend it on a BARREL and the labor to have it installed by someone who truly understands accurate rifle building.
Spend the rest on ammunition and fuel to get to the range more often. VERY VERY FEW marksman are capable of truly out performing their equipment. Quality trigger time is exponentially more valuable than wigits.
Good luck.
C
-to support some of what Roscoe is stating. For a smith it can be a bit different as their is a professional reputation to contend with also. This entire industry is based on past performance/achievement. If a guy starts just banging out guns as fast as he can make them then before too long he's known as a hack. Don't get me wrong, hacks have their place as many cannot rationalize the costs involved for something truly exceptional.
Blueprinting an action is about the process of elimination. If I true the threads/lugs and minimize tolerances then I can have reasonable confidence that if the gun doesn't perform as expected it's for some other reason.
If I use a marquee barrel and the gun doesn't shoot then I also know something else is wrong.
If I load ammunition in a carefully controlled process and the gun doesn't shoot well, then something else is wrong.
If the glass is well mounted, a quality piece to start with, and repeats then something else is wrong.
See the idea? Use good parts and your probably going to do ok. Cobble together junk and well. . .
I think a "race car" analogy might help with this.
I worked for an engine builder that specialized in no BS straight up NHRA Pro Class-Pro Stock and Sportsman class- Competition Eliminator engines back in the early/mid 90's.
Back then a good Pro Stock engine threw down around 1200hp at the flywheel. The rules are orchestrated so that a person can only do so much to the engine/car. The best driver in the world isn't going to win many races if he's 100hp down from the rest of the field so the car has to be wrung out if one hopes to take a "Wally" home.
Finding 10/20 hp means a great deal in this arena since the playing field is essentially equal for the most part. But on a street car who really cares? Many will gladly give up 30hp if it means the AC works in July.
So apply this to guns. If your searching for those last "ten HP" that can potentially make the difference when running with the top ten percent of shooters then absolutely, every single thing a smith can do to scrunch those shot groups is going to pay off with a potential win.
Use this as the barometer against your personal level of commitment when it comes to shooting. If your spending top dollar and only the best will do then sure. If not, save the money and spend it on a BARREL and the labor to have it installed by someone who truly understands accurate rifle building.
Spend the rest on ammunition and fuel to get to the range more often. VERY VERY FEW marksman are capable of truly out performing their equipment. Quality trigger time is exponentially more valuable than wigits.
Good luck.
C
-to support some of what Roscoe is stating. For a smith it can be a bit different as their is a professional reputation to contend with also. This entire industry is based on past performance/achievement. If a guy starts just banging out guns as fast as he can make them then before too long he's known as a hack. Don't get me wrong, hacks have their place as many cannot rationalize the costs involved for something truly exceptional.
Blueprinting an action is about the process of elimination. If I true the threads/lugs and minimize tolerances then I can have reasonable confidence that if the gun doesn't perform as expected it's for some other reason.
If I use a marquee barrel and the gun doesn't shoot then I also know something else is wrong.
If I load ammunition in a carefully controlled process and the gun doesn't shoot well, then something else is wrong.
If the glass is well mounted, a quality piece to start with, and repeats then something else is wrong.
See the idea? Use good parts and your probably going to do ok. Cobble together junk and well. . .
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim Kobe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No way to "prove" it, but I am sure it enhances accuracy. I do it as a matter of course if the client wants it. I do believe it aids accuracy. Makes the difference between a 1/2" and a 1/4" gun. I even know a few guys who blueprint the engines on their race cars. Why, cause it gives them an edge.</div></div>
WOuldn't it be pretty easy to prove it? Take a box stock action, thread and chamber a barrel, screw the action on and test it. After you have achieved the best possible accuracy out of that set up, take it all apart, blueprint it, rethread and chamber the barrel to fit, and then retest it. It's alot of work, but I think you'll see the proof.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim Kobe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No way to "prove" it, but I am sure it enhances accuracy. I do it as a matter of course if the client wants it. I do believe it aids accuracy. Makes the difference between a 1/2" and a 1/4" gun. I even know a few guys who blueprint the engines on their race cars. Why, cause it gives them an edge.</div></div>
WOuldn't it be pretty easy to prove it? Take a box stock action, thread and chamber a barrel, screw the action on and test it. After you have achieved the best possible accuracy out of that set up, take it all apart, blueprint it, rethread and chamber the barrel to fit, and then retest it. It's alot of work, but I think you'll see the proof.
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BeachGun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim Kobe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No way to "prove" it, but I am sure it enhances accuracy. I do it as a matter of course if the client wants it. I do believe it aids accuracy. Makes the difference between a 1/2" and a 1/4" gun. I even know a few guys who blueprint the engines on their race cars. Why, cause it gives them an edge.</div></div>
WOuldn't it be pretty easy to prove it? Take a box stock action, thread and chamber a barrel, screw the action on and test it. After you have achieved the best possible accuracy out of that set up, take it all apart, blueprint it, rethread and chamber the barrel to fit, and then retest it. It's alot of work, but I think you'll see the proof. </div></div>
Don't think that is possivle since the reciver threads are cut to a larger diamater when blueprint. Can't add metal back to the barrel
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BeachGun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim Kobe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No way to "prove" it, but I am sure it enhances accuracy. I do it as a matter of course if the client wants it. I do believe it aids accuracy. Makes the difference between a 1/2" and a 1/4" gun. I even know a few guys who blueprint the engines on their race cars. Why, cause it gives them an edge.</div></div>
WOuldn't it be pretty easy to prove it? Take a box stock action, thread and chamber a barrel, screw the action on and test it. After you have achieved the best possible accuracy out of that set up, take it all apart, blueprint it, rethread and chamber the barrel to fit, and then retest it. It's alot of work, but I think you'll see the proof. </div></div>
Don't think that is possivle since the reciver threads are cut to a larger diamater when blueprint. Can't add metal back to the barrel
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: summitsitter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Roscoe I understand all that but really how much difference does it make. I understand that people who spend a ton of money want every little thing done to them that has any chance of making them more accurate, and I don't blame them for that. I don't see how there is any info proving that it is more accurate. In logic it is but is there anyway to prove it in the real world. </div></div>
I do not believe that there is an answer to your question as regards a particular rifle.
It is my understanding that the factory tolerances are too wide to guarantee what most of us consider to be acceptable accuracy. This is the reason that your new factory rifle can be very good, very bad, or more likely some where in between.
In regards to a particular rifle, the only way to tell what you have is to measure it. This will take a good bit of time (expense) and you will likely wind up recutting it anyway.
Any Gunsmith that values his reputation is not going to be happy about screwing his new barrel, after he has worked to hold the tolerances to half a thousandth or less, on to a receiver thread that only meets factory tolerance.
He knows that he will have to take the heat if it won't shoot right and the customer will not want to hear "its not my fault".
If he has to fix it at his expense, it will turn a job that he can make a few bucks with into a big time loser. If the customer pays, it will be double what the job is worth. When you have to cut undersized threads off, you are back to square one, assuming that you don't need a new barrel.
I have had several new rifles customized/buleprinted. I always shoot them before I send them in; who knows you may be walking around lucky. One rifle, a Remington 700 Ti in 7mm-08 I kept, the rest went to the gunsmith.
Good shooting
Ron
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: summitsitter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Roscoe I understand all that but really how much difference does it make. I understand that people who spend a ton of money want every little thing done to them that has any chance of making them more accurate, and I don't blame them for that. I don't see how there is any info proving that it is more accurate. In logic it is but is there anyway to prove it in the real world. </div></div>
I do not believe that there is an answer to your question as regards a particular rifle.
It is my understanding that the factory tolerances are too wide to guarantee what most of us consider to be acceptable accuracy. This is the reason that your new factory rifle can be very good, very bad, or more likely some where in between.
In regards to a particular rifle, the only way to tell what you have is to measure it. This will take a good bit of time (expense) and you will likely wind up recutting it anyway.
Any Gunsmith that values his reputation is not going to be happy about screwing his new barrel, after he has worked to hold the tolerances to half a thousandth or less, on to a receiver thread that only meets factory tolerance.
He knows that he will have to take the heat if it won't shoot right and the customer will not want to hear "its not my fault".
If he has to fix it at his expense, it will turn a job that he can make a few bucks with into a big time loser. If the customer pays, it will be double what the job is worth. When you have to cut undersized threads off, you are back to square one, assuming that you don't need a new barrel.
I have had several new rifles customized/buleprinted. I always shoot them before I send them in; who knows you may be walking around lucky. One rifle, a Remington 700 Ti in 7mm-08 I kept, the rest went to the gunsmith.
Good shooting
Ron
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: summitsitter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BeachGun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim Kobe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No way to "prove" it, but I am sure it enhances accuracy. I do it as a matter of course if the client wants it. I do believe it aids accuracy. Makes the difference between a 1/2" and a 1/4" gun. I even know a few guys who blueprint the engines on their race cars. Why, cause it gives them an edge.</div></div>
WOuldn't it be pretty easy to prove it? Take a box stock action, thread and chamber a barrel, screw the action on and test it. After you have achieved the best possible accuracy out of that set up, take it all apart, blueprint it, rethread and chamber the barrel to fit, and then retest it. It's alot of work, but I think you'll see the proof. </div></div>
Don't think that is possivle since the reciver threads are cut to a larger diamater when blueprint. Can't add metal back to the barrel</div></div>
Not if you used a large diameter blank. You would simply cut the tenon off, rethread to fit the trued receiver, and chamber.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: summitsitter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BeachGun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim Kobe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No way to "prove" it, but I am sure it enhances accuracy. I do it as a matter of course if the client wants it. I do believe it aids accuracy. Makes the difference between a 1/2" and a 1/4" gun. I even know a few guys who blueprint the engines on their race cars. Why, cause it gives them an edge.</div></div>
WOuldn't it be pretty easy to prove it? Take a box stock action, thread and chamber a barrel, screw the action on and test it. After you have achieved the best possible accuracy out of that set up, take it all apart, blueprint it, rethread and chamber the barrel to fit, and then retest it. It's alot of work, but I think you'll see the proof. </div></div>
Don't think that is possivle since the reciver threads are cut to a larger diamater when blueprint. Can't add metal back to the barrel</div></div>
Not if you used a large diameter blank. You would simply cut the tenon off, rethread to fit the trued receiver, and chamber.
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BeachGun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: summitsitter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BeachGun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim Kobe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No way to "prove" it, but I am sure it enhances accuracy. I do it as a matter of course if the client wants it. I do believe it aids accuracy. Makes the difference between a 1/2" and a 1/4" gun. I even know a few guys who blueprint the engines on their race cars. Why, cause it gives them an edge.</div></div>
WOuldn't it be pretty easy to prove it? Take a box stock action, thread and chamber a barrel, screw the action on and test it. After you have achieved the best possible accuracy out of that set up, take it all apart, blueprint it, rethread and chamber the barrel to fit, and then retest it. It's alot of work, but I think you'll see the proof. </div></div>
Don't think that is possivle since the reciver threads are cut to a larger diamater when blueprint. Can't add metal back to the barrel</div></div>
Not if you used a large diameter blank. You would simply cut the tenon off, rethread to fit the trued receiver, and chamber. </div></div>
and by recutting the chamber and shortening the barrel, you just introduced more variables.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BeachGun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: summitsitter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BeachGun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jim Kobe</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No way to "prove" it, but I am sure it enhances accuracy. I do it as a matter of course if the client wants it. I do believe it aids accuracy. Makes the difference between a 1/2" and a 1/4" gun. I even know a few guys who blueprint the engines on their race cars. Why, cause it gives them an edge.</div></div>
WOuldn't it be pretty easy to prove it? Take a box stock action, thread and chamber a barrel, screw the action on and test it. After you have achieved the best possible accuracy out of that set up, take it all apart, blueprint it, rethread and chamber the barrel to fit, and then retest it. It's alot of work, but I think you'll see the proof. </div></div>
Don't think that is possivle since the reciver threads are cut to a larger diamater when blueprint. Can't add metal back to the barrel</div></div>
Not if you used a large diameter blank. You would simply cut the tenon off, rethread to fit the trued receiver, and chamber. </div></div>
and by recutting the chamber and shortening the barrel, you just introduced more variables.
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
I have seen factory M700 rifles that shot pretty good prior to the rebuild but the owner could not hardly zero their scopes for windage.
During the teardown, inspection and remachining of the receiver, I found that the scope base holes were almost dead nuts true to the bolt body hole in the receiver. I was expecting them to have a good bit of runout. Such was not the case.
During my single point chase on the receiver threads, I would find a bunch of axial runout on rifles exhibiting this type of issue.
The remachined and finished rifles would not only shoot very small but were able to zero their original scope and mounts within a few M.O.A. of the scopes optical center.
There are plenty of other issues I have seen with the barrel threads on factory receivers. This is just one example I wanted to share.
When I do a build on the M700, every surface where two parts interact is cleaned up relative to the bolt through hole. When the rifle is complete, I have no qualms about how it will behave. I like that confidence and predictability.
I have seen factory M700 rifles that shot pretty good prior to the rebuild but the owner could not hardly zero their scopes for windage.
During the teardown, inspection and remachining of the receiver, I found that the scope base holes were almost dead nuts true to the bolt body hole in the receiver. I was expecting them to have a good bit of runout. Such was not the case.
During my single point chase on the receiver threads, I would find a bunch of axial runout on rifles exhibiting this type of issue.
The remachined and finished rifles would not only shoot very small but were able to zero their original scope and mounts within a few M.O.A. of the scopes optical center.
There are plenty of other issues I have seen with the barrel threads on factory receivers. This is just one example I wanted to share.
When I do a build on the M700, every surface where two parts interact is cleaned up relative to the bolt through hole. When the rifle is complete, I have no qualms about how it will behave. I like that confidence and predictability.
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
summitsitter,
I understand your question. However, I (unfortunately) don't think that every step in an accurizing job can be analyzed as a separate process and its accuracy gains individually quantified.
Fortunately, the effects of some changes are easy to see. For example, swapping out a very inaccurate factory barrel for a match-grade unit is a step that will likely yield drastic results. Fire groups with 5 quality factory loads before the change and then fire the same 5 loads afterward and group sizes will probably have shrunk across the board.
Similar results would probably been seen after addressing a severe bedding issue. The bigger the problem (heavy pressure on the barrel, action shifting around in stock, etc.), the more likely you'll be to see an accuracy gain after the barrel is floated and the action anchored solidly (and correctly) to the stock.
What I'm saying is that big fixes for not-so-subtle imperfections usually offer the most bang (in the form of noticeable accuracy gains) for the buck. These are the improvements that it seems you would be most comfortable paying for (and that's understandable).
However, as the accurizing steps begin to address issues that are more and more subtle (bolt lug contact, recoil lug size, thread runout in the receiver), the returns start to get harder to see (and quantify). Of course, every case is different, and rifles with very crooked receiver threads will benefit more from chasing them than a rifle with good factory-cut threads.
So let's say you shoot a random factory rifle before having its threads chased, then chase them and shoot it again. Will you see an accuracy improvement? Possibly not. However, will that very tiny improvement one day pay off in a way that you might not even be aware of (say, keeping a bullet on the edge of a steel silhouette at 800 yards that would have otherwise missed by a millimeter had the threads not been chased)? Possibly. And maybe that one shot was a very important one (and some guys feel more than comfortable paying for that peace of mind).
summitsitter,
I understand your question. However, I (unfortunately) don't think that every step in an accurizing job can be analyzed as a separate process and its accuracy gains individually quantified.
Fortunately, the effects of some changes are easy to see. For example, swapping out a very inaccurate factory barrel for a match-grade unit is a step that will likely yield drastic results. Fire groups with 5 quality factory loads before the change and then fire the same 5 loads afterward and group sizes will probably have shrunk across the board.
Similar results would probably been seen after addressing a severe bedding issue. The bigger the problem (heavy pressure on the barrel, action shifting around in stock, etc.), the more likely you'll be to see an accuracy gain after the barrel is floated and the action anchored solidly (and correctly) to the stock.
What I'm saying is that big fixes for not-so-subtle imperfections usually offer the most bang (in the form of noticeable accuracy gains) for the buck. These are the improvements that it seems you would be most comfortable paying for (and that's understandable).
However, as the accurizing steps begin to address issues that are more and more subtle (bolt lug contact, recoil lug size, thread runout in the receiver), the returns start to get harder to see (and quantify). Of course, every case is different, and rifles with very crooked receiver threads will benefit more from chasing them than a rifle with good factory-cut threads.
So let's say you shoot a random factory rifle before having its threads chased, then chase them and shoot it again. Will you see an accuracy improvement? Possibly not. However, will that very tiny improvement one day pay off in a way that you might not even be aware of (say, keeping a bullet on the edge of a steel silhouette at 800 yards that would have otherwise missed by a millimeter had the threads not been chased)? Possibly. And maybe that one shot was a very important one (and some guys feel more than comfortable paying for that peace of mind).
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
Why skip a step when you're looking for perfection? Meaning, if you're truing the action, why spend time hitting every other dimension and geometric tolerance, and then skip both the dimensional and geometric inaccuracies of the factory threads? Seems like a contradiction if you ask me.
-matt
Why skip a step when you're looking for perfection? Meaning, if you're truing the action, why spend time hitting every other dimension and geometric tolerance, and then skip both the dimensional and geometric inaccuracies of the factory threads? Seems like a contradiction if you ask me.
-matt
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
Smiths like Roscoe and the others on here make me want to move back to the states.Heres an experience i had with a local smith,I live in the canadian capital.Picked up a 700 long action cheap.Figured I'll have it trued and a 30-06 barrel spun on it.I go into see him and ask i if he can do it. His reply "Why would you want to do that,is it that far out of spec?". My reply which was not really what i wanted too say "Would like to squeeze all the accuracy i can out of it,can you do the work". His reply "No my lathe isnt big enough". Needless too say i immediately turned around and left.
Smiths like Roscoe and the others on here make me want to move back to the states.Heres an experience i had with a local smith,I live in the canadian capital.Picked up a 700 long action cheap.Figured I'll have it trued and a 30-06 barrel spun on it.I go into see him and ask i if he can do it. His reply "Why would you want to do that,is it that far out of spec?". My reply which was not really what i wanted too say "Would like to squeeze all the accuracy i can out of it,can you do the work". His reply "No my lathe isnt big enough". Needless too say i immediately turned around and left.
Re: Importance or Blueprinting
I shoot competitively a fair amount in F-class and I am working on consistency and one of the major issues for many shooters to build consistency may be confidence. One way to build confidence is to understand that everything reasonable has been done to your equipment to make it the most accurate you can. If you think (or have any doubts at all) a full blueprinting on a Rem 700 is what makes it the most accurate then do it so you do not have that little voice in head telling you at trigger time you should have done a full blueprint.
Confidence in a build is one reason why I have one gunsmith do all my barreling, I know if I bring a quality blank in I will have another accurate gun when I pick it up.
Just my overcharged 2 cents worth,
wade
I shoot competitively a fair amount in F-class and I am working on consistency and one of the major issues for many shooters to build consistency may be confidence. One way to build confidence is to understand that everything reasonable has been done to your equipment to make it the most accurate you can. If you think (or have any doubts at all) a full blueprinting on a Rem 700 is what makes it the most accurate then do it so you do not have that little voice in head telling you at trigger time you should have done a full blueprint.
Confidence in a build is one reason why I have one gunsmith do all my barreling, I know if I bring a quality blank in I will have another accurate gun when I pick it up.
Just my overcharged 2 cents worth,
wade
