• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Gunsmithing Truth about blueprinting a Rem 700

Question: If I read this correctly, you would be truing the receiver face, correcting thread alignment and dusting off the lug seats based off of the center line of the receiver raceway. Then you would alter the critical bolt surfaces (lug locking surface and breech face) to a different axis?

That's exactly what I'm saying sir. I realize it sounds wrong and it's a leap of faith to believe that the ejector and sear springs will hold the bolt in place after the pin drops. I prefer to take that leap than knowingly create a gap at the top lug and subjecting the case to the stress from having to close it. I am certain that the case forms to the out of square bolt face before the gap closes and the head follows the face while it does. This will certainly lead to case head separation.

I run my 6.5-284 2 grains over max with a Fed. Mag. primer with no ill effects or case failures. Some of them have been fired at least 10 times and have yet to need to bump a shoulder back.
 
I disagree with your case stress, stretch, head separation thought.

If the barrel and it's associated threads and chamber are cut true to the bore, this would put the case head square to everything on that axis or parallel to that axis (on its first firing).
With your proposed setup, the breech face would be purposefully biased/offset from those axis (and I understand your reasoning).

This would result is a fired case forming to its surrounding environment and in this scenario the case head would form to the biased breech face.
Now....if that case is chambered again for a 2nd firing in any other rotational attitude other than what it was at during the previous firing, the case head will have to "re-form" to the bias of the breech face. In the worse case (a 180 degree difference from the last firing) your case head would actually have to stretch on the short side twice as much as it would have had to with an unbiased bolt face used with normal bolt tilt.

While you can single load and control your cartridge orientation, it is not logical to think in those terms for magazine fed rifles used in our art.

Surely, this is more stress on the case and cuts case life more than the other method unless you are loading each round identically to its last fired orientation.
 
That's exactly what I'm saying sir. I realize it sounds wrong and it's a leap of faith to believe that the ejector and sear springs will hold the bolt in place after the pin drops. I prefer to take that leap than knowingly create a gap at the top lug and subjecting the case to the stress from having to close it. I am certain that the case forms to the out of square bolt face before the gap closes and the head follows the face while it does. This will certainly lead to case head separation.

I run my 6.5-284 2 grains over max with a Fed. Mag. primer with no ill effects or case failures. Some of them have been fired at least 10 times and have yet to need to bump a shoulder back.


We will need to get a Mechanical Engineer or similar to crunch some numbers for us. Bohem would be perfect. If you think about the mechanical advantage that the rear of the bolt has being pushed upward by the trigger/cocking piece relationship, compared to the amount of pressure required to seat the bolt lugs from pressure on the bolt face, I would imagine it takes more pressure seating the lugs than what fireforming brass takes. Pardon my childish picture.

Just remember, when you have a fired Rem 700 or similar, the trigger still pushes the back of the bolt upward until something with more pressure changes it.

 
I disagree with your case stress, stretch, head separation thought.

If the barrel and it's associated threads and chamber are cut true to the bore, this would put the case head square to everything on that axis or parallel to that axis (on its first firing).
With your proposed setup, the breech face would be purposefully biased/offset from those axis (and I understand your reasoning).

This would result is a fired case forming to its surrounding environment and in this scenario the case head would form to the biased breech face.
Now....if that case is chambered again for a 2nd firing in any other rotational attitude other than what it was at during the previous firing, the case head will have to "re-form" to the bias of the breech face. In the worse case (a 180 degree difference from the last firing) your case head would actually have to stretch on the short side twice as much as it would have had to with an unbiased bolt face used with normal bolt tilt.

While you can single load and control your cartridge orientation, it is not logical to think in those terms for magazine fed rifles used in our art.

Surely, this is more stress on the case and cuts case life more than the other method unless you are loading each round identically to its last fired orientation.


we should take a realistic look at the worst case scenario of how much misalignment there can possibly be from one edge of a case head to the other. my guess is even at worse, it is still probably closer than the brass is after coming out of our loading presses. I don't have the time to draw it out right now but i'm guessing we are talking about a couple tenths at most. how many of us are measuring the face of our brass each time it comes out of the press? if so, how much deviation is there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tokay444
we should take a realistic look at the worst case scenario of how much misalignment there can possibly be from one edge of a case head to the other. my guess is even at worse, it is still probably closer than the brass is after coming out of our loading presses. I don't have the time to draw it out right now but i'm guessing we are talking about a couple tenths at most. how many of us are measuring the face of our brass each time it comes out of the press? if so, how much deviation is there?

I would agree...These damn threads..! Its easy to stress about small numbers that may or may not matter, but if we were talking about what would be ideal, then I agree that full lug contact/square bolt face opposed to the tilted bolt.

I did some playing around a year or so ago where I put a bolt into a milling machine V-block and put a jack on the bolt handle side. I made the pivot point of the bolt just behind the bolt lug and I placed a dial indicator on the top lug. When I moved the back of the bolt upwards around .004" or so which would represent a .0008"-.0012" forward movement of the top lug. Now I'm throwing these numbers out there from memory, but I did create an excel spreadsheet to track these numbers and I copied and pasted a little from the spread sheet to show how much would need to be removed from the bottom lug in order to bring the top lug into contact.

We played around with some of our own rifles where we used a tool post grinder to remove material from the bottom lug while the bolt was co-axially indicated in the lathe, then did a very small amount of lapping the correct way to bring both lugs into healthy contact with out tapering. We then cut the bolt face with a PTG piloted cutter. What we accomplished was a solid bolt set up where the trigger pushed the bolt upwards, both lugs were in contact and the bolt face was square. This way there theoretically no movement of the bolt before/during/after firing. The rifles shot great, but no greater than our other rifles.

So it seemed not worth pursuing and I'm sure nobody wants to pay for all that labor.


Rear Bushing Bolt Diameter Bolt Clearance Predicted correction
0.7030 -0.6930 0.0100 0.0018
0.7030 -0.6940 0.0090 0.0016
 
I totally agree with you 300. I think we are on the same page. I was just disagreeing with the proposed logic even though it is splitting hairs on a wooly mammoth.

I stay fairly busy just rebarreling and servicing rifles that I built for customers and agencies in the past. Some of those rifles I built 20-25 years ago on Rem 700 actions that I traditionally remachined and some are on their 4 and 5th barrels. Those actions are many times loose and rattle due to the high spots on the rough assed factory raceway being worn down but all of the lock up surfaces are true. Sticking a fresh Krieger on them and having them shoot GM308M in the .3s is the norm.

While I very, very rarely do a new rifle on a factory action anymore, the ones that I DID do are kickin chicken out there everyday.

I agree that trying to machine and hold tolerances down into the teeny numbers can be lost in the real world, I still think I should strive to stack as many things in the rifle's favor as possible without negatively affecting reliability in the field. Accordingly, we should all strive to use sound methodologies in our work and hold consistently high standards in the machining and fitting.

PS: Most of those older rifles were bedded with "that which should not be named here" and the original bedding continues to perform giving accurate and predictable shot placement in varying conditions.

Hope you are well and staying busy.
 
I disagree with your case stress, stretch, head separation thought.

If the barrel and it's associated threads and chamber are cut true to the bore, this would put the case head square to everything on that axis or parallel to that axis (on its first firing).
With your proposed setup, the breech face would be purposefully biased/offset from those axis (and I understand your reasoning).

This would result is a fired case forming to its surrounding environment and in this scenario the case head would form to the biased breech face.
Now....if that case is chambered again for a 2nd firing in any other rotational attitude other than what it was at during the previous firing, the case head will have to "re-form" to the bias of the breech face. In the worse case (a 180 degree difference from the last firing) your case head would actually have to stretch on the short side twice as much as it would have had to with an unbiased bolt face used with normal bolt tilt.

While you can single load and control your cartridge orientation, it is not logical to think in those terms for magazine fed rifles used in our art.

Surely, this is more stress on the case and cuts case life more than the other method unless you are loading each round identically to its last fired orientation.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

If you cut the bolt face 90 deg. to the bore axis while the back of the bolt is kicked up, the case head will stay formed square and no stress is induced. There would be no need to index the case since the base is formed perpendicular to the bore.

If you face the bolt on it's axis and have a gap at the top lug, I contend that the case is bent at the web while it's closing the gap at the top lug then bends back when the lug engages and the bolt squares up. Granted it's minimal but similar to full length sizing. Head separation is on the way.
 
Last edited:
Just build a spring loaded plunger into the back of the action that can be adjusted to keep the bolt centered in the receiver.
 
since i am not smart enough to do the math, i did the drawing again in cad. using the length mark gave above, .006" of clearance between the bolt body/receiver bore, a .5" radius would have a max of .0014" separation at the extreme tip. a .473" bolt face would have a max of .0006" deviation from the top to bottom. i am willing to bet my processed brass isn't anywhere near that consistent. i thought the max bolt lug separation was in the tenths last time i did this but that may have been a long action.
 
I think 100 yards is way too close nowadays to really judge accuracy and precision in modern rifles. I shot a brand new custom barreled action with factory ammo, off a rickety BBQ cart. The action was bolted into a stock that had been bedded for another rifle and shot .39 inch groups. I think today's rifles are just too good to stay with the 100 yard standard. We should go to 200. Things start to open up at this point a little more and still close enough where wind is not really that significant. Perhaps a 300 yard indoor range?
 
As far as blueprinting and truing goes, it's mainly an operation of principal. My local class III had me look at a suppressor that was getting baffle strike. When screwing it on the barrel with a range rod you could watch the exit hole and it was obvious that the threads in the suppressor were off. Talked to the "gunsmith" (idiot in my opinion) at the mfg. He said the shoulder on the factory AR barrel wasn't square. I didn't check that but his "cure" was to wallow out the threads in the can and square the shoulder on the barrel. Said it will line up when it gets tight. As far as I'm concerned, this approach is wrong on all fronts. He informed me that I needed to go back to school.

Proves there's more than 1 way to skin a cat!

Sounds like Shooter's Depot in Corpus Christi.
 
since i am not smart enough to do the math, i did the drawing again in cad. using the length mark gave above, .006" of clearance between the bolt body/receiver bore, a .5" radius would have a max of .0014" separation at the extreme tip. a .473" bolt face would have a max of .0006" deviation from the top to bottom. i am willing to bet my processed brass isn't anywhere near that consistent. i thought the max bolt lug separation was in the tenths last time i did this but that may have been a long action.

Again to my point, Why would one intentionally fit a bolt to an action that one lug didn't bear and the face wasn't perpendicular to the bore when it's cocked?

Sometimes it's hard to buck conventional wisdom but why follow the crowd.

When I lap the lugs, I put 320 grit on the bottom lug and 500 on top. If the bolt is really sloppy, it takes a while to even get the top to even acknowledge the 500 grit.
 
...I just can`t see blueprinting a Rem action when by the time you get done it`s the same price as a custom (Bat, Defiance, Stiller,Borden, Stolle, etc)...

I don't think this is quite right. If you buy a new Remington action at $450 thereabouts (this can be done for a significantly lower price if you go used or go to big box stores, etc.), most truing job from builders on this forum go between $200 and $300 (can be had for lower as well), you're still talking $650 to $700. A Stiller action, awesome as they are, is one of the lower price custom action out there and if you would be hard pressed to find one with under $1000.
 
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

If you cut the bolt face 90 deg. to the bore axis while the back of the bolt is kicked up, the case head will stay formed square and no stress is induced. There would be no need to index the case since the base is formed perpendicular to the bore.

Right up until you pull the trigger. The the sear drops, the off axis load caused by the fire control is relaxed, chamber pressure builds immediately following ignition, and the cartridge head begins to exert pressure against the face of the bolt. The bolt then does what it can to load evenly across both lug surfaces. (assuming there isn't some ridiculous amount of deviation between the 4 surfaces)

-point is, when the bolt is loaded against the sear and the fire control is in a compressed state, its a vastly different scenario than when the "boom" finally happens. It's an apples to garlic discussion.


If you face the bolt on it's axis and have a gap at the top lug, I contend that the case is bent at the web while it's closing the gap at the top lug then bends back when the lug engages and the bolt squares up. Granted it's minimal but similar to full length sizing. Head separation is on the way.

If this were the case, how is it shooters can routinely have guns that facilitate cartridge life on the order of 7, 8, 9, even 10 reloads on actions that aren't bushed, bumped, oversize custom units, etc? By this line of reasoning, factory loosey goosey rifles should be blasting cartridges apart after the 2nd or 3rd sizing.

If a cartridge were "rock hard" and incapable of being compressed to some degree, and if actions had absolutely zero room for "squish" then what your proposing is certainly possible. They aren't though. Brass cartridges start as a button sized slug of brass material. It's then hammered to shape via presses and drawing. With tons of force.

The consistency we enjoy is nothing short of impressive. Especially for the price. (even with present day hysteria) There is a certain degree of forgiveness and spring inherent to the parent material. It's why sizing dies are slightly smaller than what the newly sized case measures out to be. The spring back is real and its present. I have a very difficult time accepting that a .0015" out of square bolt is going to suddenly ruin brass or even accelerate its trip to the mass grave known as the recycle bin.

Split hairs for the sake of splitting them sure. It's interesting to talk and ponder over. The problem is it spreads a mass panic to those who are new to this stuff or just prone to being gullible. All it does is make life that much harder when it comes time to actually educate a person one what's important and what isn't. All of these little .0001's everyone is fretting over doesn't amount to much of anything anywhere.

Different note/subject:


The argument was proposed earlier in this thread regarding the excessive tolerances surrounding bolt shroud fit. SURE, it matters in a Bench Rest Rifle. Why is that? There's something rather unique about "bag/bench guns" vs field guns.

They behave very differently from each other.

3 years at the US Olympic Training Center illustrated this rather well. Position guns are shot/evaluated from position. NOT from a bag.

There's numerous theories. I think it has to do with water. (meh?)

Human beings are almost all water. There's no water in a bench rig. Combine water with spongy fleshy stuff and you have an excellent shock absorber.

Not so with a bench.

So how this applies is, little things like buzzing fire controls are amplified on a bench. They aren't when shot from position.

Just a theory, but Matthew Emmons out shot the test rig every time he proned out to lot test ammo. If it applies to a fickle 22LR it certainly applies to a "hypertension centerfire".

Need more proof?

At Nesika we had a prototype action called the Model 10. the fire control was the tightest ever conceived. The shroud bore and the cocking piece were wire EDM machined. The striker had a near zero tolerance fit in the bolt.

WHEN it worked (which was rare) it shot just like every other gun out there with a well fitted quality barrel and a receiver ring with properly machined threads.

The entire project was scrapped and quietly buried in the back parking lot.

Guns that go bang in the world of tactical rifles win battles and matches. Bench queen BR rifles just look pretty next to a dead guy or sit in last place.


Keep it real, LOL!


C.
 
Last edited:
I don't get it. If you want a Savage, buy a Savage.

As far as bolt tilt in the lugs causing accuracy change... I tend to think that the stresses and uniform hardness (or lack thereof) of the brass or the chemistry in the gunpowder and primer compounds has more effect on consistency than whether the bolt lugs have a .0006" gap on one side or the other. I'd be much more interested in creating a uniform pressure curve in the chamber.
 
I dont' think it's the gap that matters - it's how the bolt thrust is distributed between the lugs. If it's even, the action is pushed straight back. If it's not even, the action will be pushed straight back AND be exposed to a bending force. That bending force can drive an up-down vibration (assuming two up-down oriented lugs), so you want as little imbalance as you can get.

And since the bolt thrust may be on the order of 10,000 pounds, a 60/40 split means you might see a force imbalance of 2,000 pounds to drive that vibration - not chump change.

In his unfortunately out of print book, Harold Vaughn detailed some experiments in this area, one of which was to purposefully machine the lugs of a sporter so that only one made contact. The result was a 2 MOA change - directly vertical - in the POI. Unfortunately, he left the area largely unexplored.

So while there is some hair splitting and speculation as to how you go about it, getting the lugs to distribute the load evenly is a pretty important topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mudpig
Still ciphering what the conundrum is. If it's trued it's better than it was. Whether the accuracy was improved?! Non issue, it runs / works better than it did. Barrel and chambering has a part in it. Still comes down to the nut loose behind the trigger. One lug squared faster, bolt body was this, lock time was, Savage was best, Rem was great, this smith took this long, my smith was fast and yours sucks, sleeved my action, mine is loose.........c'mon. Truth is it helps. Aint the holy grail but worth it.


I'm sure this will get deleted
 
(I enjoyed your post and appreciate the compliment)

Figuring. . .

A dangerous word apparently. I'm blessed to have some rather sophisticated software for programming the machines in the LRI inventory. I've made complete solid models of both long/short action M700 actions. A .005" diameter differential between receiver/bolt works out to an angular deflection of .058" degrees. The 12 o clock lug tips away from the receiver .00015".

Having actually worked for what was (at the time) considered one of the most "marquee" action producers in the world (Nesika Bay Precision) I can tell you that after shooting HUNDREDS of Nesika guns and HUNDREDS of accurized M700's there is to date NO difference on paper. However I can say that I had to rework a whole lot of Nesika's with galled up lugs, receivers too tight to run after coating the bolt, etc.

Not so with the little pissant M700.


So theorize/ponder/bench race the subject all you want. Treat it for what it is; passionate fictional conversation.

If you deem that a custom action belongs in your safe, buy one. They are awesome and very, very well made with all sorts of cool little widgit features that production actions will never have. If you want a "blue collar" gun that runs the numbers then buy an M700 and smile as you hold it in your hand and the custom guy stares at a delivery date that's six months out.

Keep it real!

C.

I'm pretty sure I've seen you do the math on this in other threads in other years in other places on the internet. Twenty more years and you may make a dent in threads like this. Good luck!
 
Right up until you pull the trigger. The the sear drops, the off axis load caused by the fire control is relaxed, chamber pressure builds immediately following ignition, and the cartridge head begins to exert pressure against the face of the bolt. The bolt then does what it can to load evenly across both lug surfaces. (assuming there isn't some ridiculous amount of deviation between the 4 surfaces)

-point is, when the bolt is loaded against the sear and the fire control is in a compressed state, its a vastly different scenario than when the "boom" finally happens. It's an apples to garlic discussion.

That's why I neck size my cases. They hold the bolt in place when the firing pin is on it's way.


If you face the bolt on it's axis and have a gap at the top lug, I contend that the case is bent at the web while it's closing the gap at the top lug then bends back when the lug engages and the bolt squares up. Granted it's minimal but similar to full length sizing. Head separation is on the way.

If this were the case, how is it shooters can routinely have guns that facilitate cartridge life on the order of 7, 8, 9, even 10 reloads on actions that aren't bushed, bumped, oversize custom units, etc? By this line of reasoning, factory loosey goosey rifles should be blasting cartridges apart after the 2nd or 3rd sizing.

As you stated brass is very resilient. Obviously the little amount of stretch we are talking is nothing it real terms. I just like to make things as close to perfect as I can. When I go to the trouble of prepping brass, I expect it to outlive me. Another point is that most rifles' bolt faces are squared on their axis and it's not a problem. This really is splitting hairs.




Split hairs for the sake of splitting them sure. It's interesting to talk and ponder over. The problem is it spreads a mass panic to those who are new to this stuff or just prone to being gullible. All it does is make life that much harder when it comes time to actually educate a person one what's important and what isn't. All of these little .0001's everyone is fretting over doesn't amount to much of anything anywhere.


Different note/subject:


The argument was proposed earlier in this thread regarding the excessive tolerances surrounding bolt shroud fit. SURE, it matters in a Bench Rest Rifle. Why is that? There's something rather unique about "bag/bench guns" vs field guns.



Keep it real, LOL!


C.

Good point on the mass panic and one I hadn't considered. Wish I had but I guess it's a good thing nobody listens to me!

Wish I'd have picked up on the bolt shroud fit. One thing I can offer in that vein is when they are too sloppy, esp if the front of the cocking piece is rounded which most are, they tend to ride up the sear and put downward pressure on it and cause a fluctuation on the pull weight. When I discovered this, the trigger I was trying to adjust would fluctuate a pound at will.

Sometimes recutting the cocking piece to a sharp edge will fix it but normally it takes welding and refitting.

Just for grins sometime, push the shroud down to bottom out on the receiver and check the pull. Most of the time it will reduce the pull weight.
 
Last edited:
I dont' think it's the gap that matters - it's how the bolt thrust is distributed between the lugs. If it's even, the action is pushed straight back. If it's not even, the action will be pushed straight back AND be exposed to a bending force. That bending force can drive an up-down vibration (assuming two up-down oriented lugs), so you want as little imbalance as you can get.

And since the bolt thrust may be on the order of 10,000 pounds, a 60/40 split means you might see a force imbalance of 2,000 pounds to drive that vibration - not chump change.

In his unfortunately out of print book, Harold Vaughn detailed some experiments in this area, one of which was to purposefully machine the lugs of a sporter so that only one made contact. The result was a 2 MOA change - directly vertical - in the POI. Unfortunately, he left the area largely unexplored.

So while there is some hair splitting and speculation as to how you go about it, getting the lugs to distribute the load evenly is a pretty important topic.


Interesting to say the least. Was that 2MOA @ 100 yds?
 
This is action with all the trimmings. It is still much lower price than a Stiller. At least I think $300 is significant.

This is a great deal first off, however it is the exception, not the rule. If you look around and price what other gunsmiths charge, you will find that the difference in FINAL price between custom and trued is a lot closer.
 
Agreed, for what this forum is all about.. W/e rifle you can shoot, go shoot it! Another great thread, with info from some of the best..Thanks.

I am reducing inventory from my safe, BUT my factory Winchester mod 70 will not be one of them.

Custom actions are way cool! So are Ducati's, Ferrari's etc.

Roll with what you like, have fun and shoot the shit out of the weapon you choose. Each has their place IMHO......
 
I'm not quite sure where you're buying your custom actions at, but when you can buy a Remington 700 for $600, and then put another $1k into it for a new barrel and blueprinting and have an extremely accurate rifle for the cost of the custom action alone I'd say its cost effective for a non competition shooter. I'm in the process of doing this very thing. I put a Timney trigger on it, a magpul hunter stock, and DBM, and next its getting a Bartlein Barrel and an action job. All told I'll have spent about $2k and I'll have a rifle I'm happy with. Not counting the cost of glass in there though. I've already got a Leupold VX5HD 3-15x56 for it. Will it win a competition by .0001? Not on my best day, but it'll be plenty accurate for ringing steel and dropping some critters for dinner out to reasonable ranges. I'd say it all comes down to what you're willing to pay for and how happy you'll be with the end result.
 
I'm not quite sure where you're buying your custom actions at, but when you can buy a Remington 700 for $600, and then put another $1k into it for a new barrel and blueprinting and have an extremely accurate rifle for the cost of the custom action alone I'd say its cost effective for a non competition shooter. I'm in the process of doing this very thing. I put a Timney trigger on it, a magpul hunter stock, and DBM, and next its getting a Bartlein Barrel and an action job. All told I'll have spent about $2k and I'll have a rifle I'm happy with. Not counting the cost of glass in there though. I've already got a Leupold VX5HD 3-15x56 for it. Will it win a competition by .0001? Not on my best day, but it'll be plenty accurate for ringing steel and dropping some critters for dinner out to reasonable ranges. I'd say it all comes down to what you're willing to pay for and how happy you'll be with the end result.

There are a lot of custom actions cheaper than 1600. You can buy several for under 1k, a barrel for 600 and a krg bravo which won't be much more than what you proposing. It is a different story if you already have an action.
 
The necro post is very common with new members. The system must bring up old posts somehow and the date does not get noticed. Seen this often over the years. That said, sometimes a gem is rediscovered.
 
There are lots of solid reasons to buy custom actions. Accuracy isn’t one of them.

That’s right, there are factors to rifles that aren’t accuracy. I’d do it for reliability alone.
 
I don’t know about other smiths but when I was building lots of rifles I always choose to use a Remington when I could Direct from Remington buy a new 700 long action for 280.00 and charge 500.00 for blue printing and still be 200.00 less then any bottom line custom action that was more money in my pocket Enough savings for the customer to almost pay for 1/2 of the barrel And all the previous talk about bolt miss alignment is senseless if your using a sloppy chamber cause the spring loaded ejector causes more miss alignment then any thing else that’s why smile face one sided Webb endings happen . tight match chambers and removing ejectors Is a must in any accurate bench Rest Rifle Build . No Prophet in labor is the failure of most gunsmiths. LEGO gunsmith are short lived and seldom Long lived.
 
I agree about the business. That’s why I choose rifles that don’t require gunsmiths. AR, AI, etc. Technological advancements are really going to put the hurt on the gunsmithing profession, if you aren’t doing walnut and bluing.
 
I agree about the business. That’s why I choose rifles that don’t require gunsmiths. AR, AI, etc. Technological advancements are really going to put the hurt on the gunsmithing profession, if you aren’t doing walnut and bluing.
When I was still smithing I had lots of remage people come to me cause they could not get their rifle to shoot worth crap it was twice the price for punishment for going cheep Quality builders will never go away if the are wise fair and make money tech will never produce the accuracy of the benchrest world
 
Yup. Quality will always be in demand. Good doesn't come cheap, and cheap is rarely good. There are exceptions to every rule, but they're typically few and far between. I think that eventually tech will be able to throw out a rifle of that level of accuracy, but it won't be cheap. CNC capabilities are seriously incredible, and only getting better. Still though, I think it'll take a human touch to make it come together the way it should.
 
Yup. Quality will always be in demand. Good doesn't come cheap, and cheap is rarely good. There are exceptions to every rule, but they're typically few and far between. I think that eventually tech will be able to throw out a rifle of that level of accuracy, but it won't be cheap. CNC capabilities are seriously incredible, and only getting better. Still though, I think it'll take a human touch to make it come together the way it should.
Cnc is great considering proper fixturing and knowledge of correct outcome in programs Knowledge of the old dies with the old and new found knowledge in many cases it just old brought back up. Lathe turned on center and fine tuned human touch is my first and best choice
 
I agree. I'm just saying that technology is evolving every day, and the stuff coming off the line are getting a lot better. I mean take your average rifle today, and compare it to an average rifle from 15 years ago. They're worlds better now. Gunsmiths are also getting a lot more innovative with designs and such. The world of firearms is a changing one, that's for sure. I'm with you though, I'd prefer a rifle made by the hands of a talented craftsman vice one turned out on an assembly line, regardless of the level of tech involved. I mean, sure I can't afford a custom, but a man can dream!
 
When I was still smithing I had lots of remage people come to me cause they could not get their rifle to shoot worth crap it was twice the price for punishment for going cheep Quality builders will never go away if the are wise fair and make money tech will never produce the accuracy of the benchrest world

What was the fix for all these "remage people"?

What was the name of your shop?
 
And amazingly a savage, with all of its major components held in place with paper clips and bubble gum can shoot well. Someone should let them and tikka know that the 3/4" slop they roll is killing their accuracy.
I got 3 remus, 2 custom actions ,and 2 savage action ,22 and 223 the savage is the only ones that have had a problem. Savage needs to rethink there bolt problems
 
The necro post is very common with new members. The system must bring up old posts somehow and the date does not get noticed. Seen this often over the years. That said, sometimes a gem is rediscovered.
Or it was pulled up in a Google search while doing research on a particular subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheChief
Or it was pulled up in a Google search while doing research on a particular subject.
Bingo. My bad guys! I did get some good info out of it though and I appreciate your time!
 
Yup. Quality will always be in demand. Good doesn't come cheap, and cheap is rarely good. There are exceptions to every rule, but they're typically few and far between. I think that eventually tech will be able to throw out a rifle of that level of accuracy, but it won't be cheap. CNC capabilities are seriously incredible, and only getting better. Still though, I think it'll take a human touch to make it come together the way it should.



I politely challenge your last statement when it pertains to receiver, bolt, barrel, and all but the final hand blending that goes with stock work.

I will go on a limb and call myself the "tip of the spear" when it pertains to using automation to refine a production class receiver from either Remington (M7, M700, and 40X) or Winchester (M70 in all the various versions excluding the latest MOA). I've also gone very deep into the stock work side of this. We are one of very few shops who does all of our own inletting using automated equipment.

The results are for you to judge.

I started this effort in 2004 while working for Nesika because Glen Harrison handed me some actions that had been murdered by outside gunsmiths. (galled lugs/receiver ring threads). Down the rabbit hole I went... In 2013 I liquidated my life savings to put a 2nd 3 axis machine on the floor fitted with a manual trunion table. That was the eve of our Group Buy on this site. That effort allowed me to pay myself back in 4 months. In February of this year I went all the way in and bought a 5 axis machine. Again, the sole purpose being to blueprint actions better and faster than ever before.

I have one big advantage here: Volume. Volume allows one to look at trends and adjust the process. Volume is how you gain experience. I am fortunate to have a great deal of both now. Its no different than any other experiment where feedback is only vetted after acquiring a lot of data so that intelligent decisions can be made. I know for an absolute fact now that we can control the features that dictate breech clearance and headspace to less than .0005" right off the machine. I know our threads are absurdly consistent in how they gauge. Enough that competing shops have taken notice and now emulate some of the things we were doing a decade ago.

That's what almost $320,000.00 buys you. (the latest machine. If we add up the last 10 years we are well north of half a milion) The machines were the easy part. Wire it, communicate with it, software to program it, and finally, tooling it up. That's where you really hemorrhage money and start to ask yourself if your as smart as you think you are. :)

One particular client of ours is good for 40+ actions a month. We went through growing pains the first two months the machine was on the floor. They trusted us and we got it sorted out. Now receivers come off the spindle with features controlled as well as any "custom" M700 knock off out there. I can do this because the process we are doing isn't all that different from what they use. The machine work is actually the easy part and its even easier if your starting from raw materials. They can define where stuff goes pretty easy. I have to take an existing product that's gone through countless revisions since 1962 and go find all of the finished features. Then figure out how to machine "just enough" so that its where it should be.

Any job shop or production machinist hates one word more than any other: "rework" That is basically what any gunplumber performing a blueprint job is doing.

Automating the setup is what will make you consider becoming a meth addict who plays with razor blades while sitting in heavy traffic. :) I likely invested a good 400 hours into that process before I finally settled on a solution that is scaleable by being easily passed onto staff.

The payout:

Prior to 2004 it took me roughly 1-1/2 hours to tune up an M700 from a dead start on manual equipment. Setup, running, inspection, etc.... In 2013 we got it down to roughly half an hour per receiver with the Kitamura.

Today its 8 minutes chip to chip for our basic Tier 1 blueprint. I can be fixtured and ready to run in less than 2 minutes. If you add all the elective services we can do in the same setup it increases the run time to less than 20 minutes. Keep in mind those other setups would easily consume at least one full day on conventional equipment as were talking at least 5+ different workholding routines for everything done on at least two different machines.

This is not factoring in the peripheral bolt work that we have also consolidated.

The final consideration I put to someone during a discussion like this:

If you are willing right now to put your wife and your children on a commercial airline jet and send them at speeds approaching Mach 1 to go visit wherever, know that the same types of machines that built those airplanes are now also putting precision bolt action firearms together.

There is absolutely no reason to think you are giving up any level of quality or performance. Its only getting better. It has been a personal crusade of mine to prove that for almost 2 decades.

Hope this helps.

C.
 
Last edited:
It takes a human touch to design something or to experiment and find a chamber design that works. Then you scale it up and press play. See above.
 
Don't get me wrong, I agree completely. I was saying that above. I just mean to make a rifle feel just right in the hand, takes a human touch. Machines can't intuit feel, yet anyways. What makes a rifle really feel just right in the hand, and for an individual shooter. They can produce a precision, damn near perfect rifle, but I will always think it'll take a human to make it just right. The subtle touches that finish it off for a rifle tailored to a shooter. Not talking assembly line production rifles, but customs built for a particular shooter. Am I making sense?
 
Don't get me wrong, I agree completely. I was saying that above. I just mean to make a rifle feel just right in the hand, takes a human touch. Machines can't intuit feel, yet anyways. What makes a rifle really feel just right in the hand, and for an individual shooter. They can produce a precision, damn near perfect rifle, but I will always think it'll take a human to make it just right. The subtle touches that finish it off for a rifle tailored to a shooter. Not talking assembly line production rifles, but customs built for a particular shooter. Am I making sense?


I guess I would ask specifically what. What "hand element" makes that leap? The exception being any of the following:

Checkering
Ornate engraving
final sanding prior to finish application
Application of an oil finish to a stock

(With that, I'm betting that if given enough time and resources, these processes could be automated as well.)

If were talking fundamental machine work, I would sternly disagree. Only because I've proven it. The old school thought path of "I need to feel what the reamer is doing" is complete BS. If you screw up and blow up a tool or lock it up in the chamber, its going to be over with before you even realize there's been an accident. The signal from hand to brain to the foot used to stomp on the spindle brake just isn't fast enough.

Its when I realized this (two decades ago) that I literally said "fuck it, lets figure out how to automate it". I have zero regrets in that decision.

Stock work? I've been machining my own inlets since 2003. If curious, do your own research on what an LRI bedding job looks like. You judge for yourself. In 11 years of business I've yet to have one come back. We don't touch em with anything "hand worked". They come off the machine like that.

In reality, all your doing is replacing the file/dremel tool, whatever for a keyboard, mouse, and software. The brass ring is having the ability to use that stuff efficiently so that cash still circulates through your business. A steep and ambitious curve but one with reward if you persistent.
 
Longrifles Inc., That tool you pass thru the receiver, how much does it change the diameter of the bore?