Barrel Threading

[bradders]

 

.........and have them 'smithed' by some chancer who knows jacksh*t about precision gunsmithing and cares as little ludicrous.

 

To be honest there really is no such thing as precision gunsmithing, and while we're speaking honestly here, the term gunsmithing is open to interpretation.

What most people here are, are barrel screwer-oners.

They will take an action that has been made for them (hopefully as well as can be made) with a bolt that has enough slack in it that it doesn't gall or jam with dirt, and take a barrel blank (that isn't straight) clock it, turn and thread approx 1" in length at one end (so it's neither too tight or too loose in the receiver), maybe a bit less at the other (sometimes not at all) run a reamer into it to the required depth (with a tolerance of up to five thou depth) then polish up the bits to make it look shiny.

 

Yes there is a little more to it than that, but that basically is it, and if you take care (and we all have good days and bad days) and only let it go out when you feel you couldn't make it any better, then that is all that is asked of you

 

Gunsmithing is when you make parts and repair firearms and can cater for the whole gamut.

 

As a very good American gunsmith once said to me about his work "it's not just good, it's good enough"

RIP Marty

[gbal]

+1 Vince and Laurie adding....

 

......and doing it for six competitions through the season,for an overall aggregate.And probably the next season too! Consistency is critica-many rifles will shoot sub 1/4 moa occasionally-indeed almost all will once if you shoot enough 3 shot 'groups'-it's called 'chance distribution'.

 

A few factory rifles approach the better sustoms,as Vince says (two of them- Les' 308 ,which shot some 1/2 moa 1000y groups,and a Ruger 22ppc,once the 100/200 factory record gun-have rested in my hall of fame cabinet).Most don't,or at least didn't,though they seem to be rather more frequent these days-allegedly. I don't see Ruger though among the hotties.

What also distinguishes the (best) custom rifles is that they very seldom shoot much worse-Usain Bolt has the world record for 100m,though he's only done it once (enough),but he very rarely runs much outside .25 seconds of it-consistency.

 

OK gents- is this discussion about tolerance-engineering primarily? Occasionally the 6 sigma concept turns up-but seldom in it's original 'tolerance manufacturing' sense,which was something like a product being 99.99966 % free of defects ...which despite the five decimals,seems to comes out something like 4.5 sigma,anyhow let's say no more than 3.4 defective items in one million manufactured items.

Andy et al would have to go some to do a million rifles!

NO,the issue is there is no absolute known criteria for absolute rifle precision ( a few of the Houston tunnel PPCs did get close,but none were then measured!)

Do we know just what to measure-well some components are likely tomore critical than others,but I take Al's point to be which,and more specifically,just how good do they have to be (I'm no engineer,but my friend is,and we talk about such,and I've been round the works a couple of times :-) My naive idea is that the most critical bit of all is the hole down the barrel,usually supplied done,and a fair way behind,the chamber-which smiths usually cut. This based on the assumption (with some evidence) that barrels seem to matter...few disagree. I'd think about 80% of potential precision is barrel;action etc contribute,but less,and most others are peripheral-ie even from a vice,they would not add much....but really,we don't know in any quantifiable way.

IT's highly likey that close tolerances matter more in some places-the idea of a loose barrel/tenon fit seems undesireable to me.But we should not get into comparing poor work (as defined by looser tolerances) with perfection-maybe unobtainable,in some areas (might not even be completely (100%) desireable in some-I know not.

There seems no neeed for defensive manoeuvering on this-final results are what defines gunsmithing,in the real shooting world;a less skilled smith might not succed even with the best components,and a skilled smith will ideally prefer the very best components,lest his skill be compromised.

Would that we knew where such skilled machining etc was best deployed ! It would be professionally quite defensible for smiths to see this as a bit of their 'trade' knowledge,though thee might be some consensus?

Any terms such as 'good enough' (customer) and 'til I'm happy' (smith) are rather ..errr imprecise,unless some objective criteria are added,by both. The 'one for the wallet' group for a casual field varminter might be a competition disaster for a top Bench Rester.

 

Since we don't have ready access to precision language here,let alone definitive knowledge of what are critical tolerances,and their effects, best keep some perspective: we are not nearly ready for the 'who callibrates the callibrations',nor hopefully will we need to be; at the 'holes in paper' level,I doubt that very many third decimal differences in a given relay are down to the components or the engineering. But 'better designed, better bits,better made" is almost never detrimental to absolute performance.

 

gbal

ps,if you're watching any tennis,the top players use their own stringer...... :-)

[Offroad Gary]

And Blasers dont even have a tennon thread....

[Laurie]

Mark, perhaps I should have said 'precision machining'. A gunsmith who has built some of the best benchrest and F-Class rifles in the country said to me years ago that 'gunsmithing' is 95% precision machining and 5% learning and applying the ' gunmaking tricks' that make a world class performing rifle. The individual concerned made a relatively late-life career change and went back to a local engineering college as a mature student to learn the basics alongside squads of bored 17 year olds who were only interested in doing each task just well enough to be signed off by the intructor. They couldn't understand his approach that saw him there often until well into the evening and doing each job again and again and again until he felt the results were consistently as perfect as he and the machinery could make them.

 

On another side of the same coin, when I took up TR shooting in the early 80s a few north of England competitors had rifles that had been built by Callum Ferguson sometime back in the 70s. I can't say if his outfit was called PRS back then, but Callum was regarded by many as the best builder of match rifles in the country and people would take the long drive to the far north of Scotland to talk to him often combining a holiday with a rebarrelling job being done and so on. Somewhat later he stopped doing TR work because his standards and prices were too high for rifles that were mostly being used with not particularly good quality military ammunition (this was still pre 155gn 7.62mm days with shall we say variable standards between lots of RG 'Green Spot' 146gn stuff) on 2-MOA top-score targets (pre the 1988 introduction of the 1-MOA 'V'). It wasn't that people wouldn't pay his prices - I know at least two guys who wanted to continue with PRS built rifles well after he stopped doing this work - but that he neither got a challenge from building things whose use didn't gain the full benefit of the effort put in nor gave the customer value for money.

 

As with any custom work, rifle building has to be getting the balance right between input and output so that the customer is happy with the results and price and the gunsmith gets a reasonable financial reward for the number of hours of work he puts in as well as being paid for his experience and expertise. Getting that balance right to meet your quote of 'it's not just good, it's good enough' is probably one of the hardest balances to get right - but nobody'll have to tell you that since you're at the coal-face doing it for one major part of the market.

[Laurie]

 

To be honest there really is no such thing as precision gunsmithing, and while we're speaking honestly here, the term gunsmithing is open to interpretation.

What most people here are, are barrel screwer-oners.

 

 

 

Mark, that's an interesting comment in itself and reminded me of something from a few years back that I'd forgotten. Going back 6 (?), 7(?) years ago, the factory rifle to beat in Factory Class 600 and 1,000 yard BR was the 6.5-284 Savage 12 F-Class. I bought one new at a bargain price by today's standards, but whilst not so poor that you could return it as unsatisfactory, simply wouldn't shoot the groups that the best examples could and did. Stuart at Osprey Rifles put on a Bartlein 6.5 chambered for 'bog-standard' 6.5X55mm, no tight necks or non-CIP freebore, and that transformed the performance. (I still have the action now in a 7mm rifle in a different stock, and the 6.5X55mm barrel and they'll go back together again in due course.)

 

However, oner of the mainsprings of going for the Savage apart from the performance I was getting from the .204 LRPV that Vince mentions, was the quick-change barrel facility thanks to the castellated barrel locking nut and the widespread availability of 'pre-fits' from Criterion Barrels, Pac-Nor and others in the USA, very affordable and reportedly good quality. At that time, Pac-Nor took private export orders - quote the plastic number and few weeks later a chambered threaded barrel arrived. I envisaged this rifle going through a series of barrels in different calibres that fitted the bolt-face only needing a barrel vice, locking nut spanner, action wrench, and the the appropriate chamber gauge for each new cartridge.

 

Anyway, the USA started to really apply ITAR just at this point, Pac-Nor was nearly closed down for illegal exports, and US made barrels of any make and type became really hard to get and much more expensive partly due to the regulations, partly the fast falling pound v the US dollar. I always thought it was a shame that it wasn't possible to see how well (or otherwise) a good factory stock + action assembly (good, but not up to custom build standards) with a switch-barrel semi-custom barrel and chamber would perform.

 

It's difficult to tell from US forum posts how widespread the DIY pre-fit barrel change culture is in the USA now. It's obviously still out there, but as here, most of the chatter is about true custom rifles. I imagine the downside and the limit on sales is partly Savage in that American long-range precision shooters have a love-hate relationship with its single-shot rifles and the AccuTrigger, many of the top guys doing their best to rubbish them, often unfairly I believe, but also the uncertainty factor. People will spend a lot of money on a custom job in the reasonable belief that it increases the certainty of good performance from the off.

[gbal]

With hindsight-probably- we could have had some good data on this 'tolerance/optimal' smithing issue.Perhaps we do,and hasn't emerged,nobody's confessing-but it's more likely we just don't know-who does post mrtems on super shooters,or even not quite so good ones....given a reasonable sample,the answer might energe.....

 

Since rifles differ-probably- even top custom smithed ones , if we'd taken some engineering measurements of the really good ones,we might be better informed,no? But we don't-the smithing tolerances might/not be kept,but there is no correlation to that rifles performance,usually shot by someone else.

 

Bear in mind too,that they are mostly " as good as the smith could put together',though that would not include barrel quality etc. We could do the same for non custom (though that will tell less,probably-component quality being less controlled ).

 

I can't recall any noteable Bench Rest (etc) shooter comment on a 'hummer action',or 'hummer tenon' -indeed only "hummer barrels"....but that is not definitive,if suggestive.Just posssibly all their rifles-less barrels-are 'as good as it gets',even if it's only 99.9% !

So,has anyone got any data on whether upraded engineering (measured!) actually correlated with improved performance-it has to be 'clean',in the sense that if a custom barrel replaced a factory one ,it won't help us on engineering precision. Alternately,any relatively modest rifle performance linkable to (measured) modest engineering...? Are the hummer Sako's more precisely engineered,and if so what bits?

gbal

I think I'll get reengineered by the Federer Tennis Company,Swiss tennis still at it's best. Wonder what his tendons measure?

[Big Al]

Vince & Laurie,

 

Judging by your contributions I think you have picked up on the point I was making wrongly which seems to be the stimulus for the discussion today in this thread.

 

My question all along in this thread has been 'how good is good enough?' - when it comes to working tolerances.

 

I think Mark puts it very well when he used the term 'barrel screwer on'ers' and I say that giving all due respect to the ones out there who are turning out good accurate and precise rifles.

 

At no point did I suggest that factory rifles would compete with custom ones, what I said was that factory rifles which are clearly machined and assembled to much lesser tolerances than the ones we see quoted on this forum still shoot very well indeed when fed on carefully made and correctly developed hand loads, when I say factory rifles Im thinking here of the likes of Tikka and Sako as an example.

 

As a former engineer who is used to working to tolerances of varying degrees my interest has been with regard to exactly how close these working tolerances need to be (when working with high quality components) to then turn out an highly accurate/precise rifle. I have never suggested that someone who knows jack that which promotes growth and vigour could slap them together willy nilly with little machining knowledge/understanding and come up with a championship winning rifle.

 

My original question still stands and still remains unanswered, for reasons Ronin alluded to earlier I guess it could remain unanswered for a while yet.

 

We are shown videos showing chambers which appear to have zero run out or muzzles set up for crowning while working to four decimals, firstly Im a little sceptical of this but more importantly I would be keen to know exactly how much run out there was on that really super accurate factory rifle many of us have owned in the past, I would expect considerably more?

[Laurie]

 

My question all along in this thread has been 'how good is good enough?' - when it comes to working tolerances.

 

 

 

I don't think you (or we) will ever see a scientific answer to that question. It would take several rifles built to slightly different tolerances using identical components and firing large numbers of very carefully loaded rounds in a carefully controlled environment such as a tunnel range to compare averages of a large number of groups. Logistics and cost aside, most people in the precision rifle building business know that irrespective of their input and expertise, some of the results will shoot a little better than others. The usual reason given is minor barrel variations, and that's something the gunsmith can't control. The 'bum barrel' is of course the precision gunsmith's nightmare. Even if / when he gets a replacement from the barrelmaker, he won't obtain compensation for the workload in fitting it to the customer's rifle.

 

Since the best of the barrelmakers' products are very good indeed, a top quality gunsmith charging premium rates will seek to have the 'poorest' example shoot well enough to satisfy the customer. The 'best' example that lucks onto the 'hummer' barrel is a bonus.

 

As I said in a previous post, the reassurance / psychological factors are powerful - people buying custom rifles are buying (or should be buying) as near as 100% guaranteed satisfactory performance as possible. (That's one reason why some people in the US guntrade and some of the country's top competitive shooters hate the Savage PTA action. You're not supposed to win national matches shooting a rifle with a factory action when everybody else has spent the money on a BAT or Stolle.

 

Have a look at

 

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/?s=Eliseo+S1+rifle&submit=Search

 

and scroll down to the article headed: Ladies Triumph in Arizona Savage Shocks Shooters)

[Big Al]

Sorry,

 

you're saying isn't not possible to machine a barrel tenon to a specified diameter.....

 

1.0625" dis the standard diameter for most remington base actions (both custom and those from the "big green") - you're saying its not possible to machine to that size....?

 

Ive just (literally) machined a tenon for a tikka the diameter for the tenon is .998" diameter and .987" long, both measurements are exact recorded on Mitutoyo digital equipment - with calibration certificates

 

 

Are you saying that these measurements are not correct....and its impossible to work to ?

 

Turning to 1.0625 +/- 0 is possible but its not realistic or repeatable in the real world if you were doing it all day long on a manual machine as your currently doing, even with tight slides and a very accurate DRO, again some are more accurate than others. If you were doing batch work and being paid only for the perfect ones when having to work to +/- 0 then you would quickly start to moan about your pay packet at the end of the week. Yes you can do it but its not going to happen all day every day.

 

Then again, next time your machining a Remington tenon to 1.0625" be a devil and take it to 1.620" a whopping 0.0025" undersize then screw it and see just how well it still fits the action! I will bet you that providing the faces of the action and the tenon are square it will make no difference to how the rifle shoots.

 

If you really want to see how well your machine will work and get a true idea of workable tolerances give this one a try. Bore yourself a 2" inch deep 1" diameter hole then turn yourself a shaft to a locational standard, it must be right first time and no polishing with emery is allowed

[Big Al]

 

 

I don't think you (or we) will ever see a scientific answer to that question. It would take several rifles built to slightly different tolerances using identical components and firing large numbers of very carefully loaded rounds in a carefully controlled environment such as a tunnel range to compare averages of a large number of groups. Logistics and cost aside, most people in the precision rifle building business know that irrespective of their input and expertise, some of the results will shoot a little better than others. The usual reason given is minor barrel variations, and that's something the gunsmith can't control. The 'bum barrel' is of course the precision gunsmith's nightmare. Even if / when he gets a replacement from the barrelmaker, he won't obtain compensation for the workload in fitting it to the customer's rifle.

 

Since the best of the barrelmakers' products are very good indeed, a top quality gunsmith charging premium rates will seek to have the 'poorest' example shoot well enough to satisfy the customer. The 'best' example that lucks onto the 'hummer' barrel is a bonus.

 

As I said in a previous post, the reassurance / psychological factors are powerful - people buying custom rifles are buying (or should be buying) as near as 100% guaranteed satisfactory performance as possible. (That's one reason why some people in the US guntrade and some of the country's top competitive shooters hate the Savage PTA action. You're not supposed to win national matches shooting a rifle with a factory action when everybody else has spent the money on a BAT or Stolle.

 

Have a look at

 

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/?s=Eliseo+S1+rifle&submit=Search

 

and scroll down to the article headed: Ladies Triumph in Arizona Savage Shocks Shooters)

 

I agree entirely Laurie and for all the reasons you suggest.

 

I guess the point Im trying to make is that some people will make a very specific point of telling the world just how much they work to to the very highest standards, even perfection it seems!

 

Meanwhile I imagine others just get on with doing it in a more modest fashion and to a standard that is good enough. Maybe those guys have been at it long enough to know just how good it needs to be to be good enough and if its less than perfection they are happy to keep that fact to themselves

[243ack]

I don't think I was too clear in my statement of absolute dimensioning. 1.0625 may or may not be repeatable - but this is NOT an absolute dimension. Absolute means to infinite decimal places (assuming the last one is not zero) and is therefore absolutely unobtainable.

Incidentally: if one part is machined to an accuracy of four decimal places; how much 'slack' is machined in the mating part for a 'perfect' fit?.

Someones interpretation??.

[1967spud]

as an old timer engineer who helps me keeps telling me size doesnt fit size

[Big Al]

as an old timer engineer who helps me keeps telling me size doesnt fit size

 

Sometimes it does Spud, it just depends on the kind of fit you want.

[Big Al]

Duplicate post.

[Big Al]

 

Incidentally: if one part is machined to an accuracy of four decimal places; how much 'slack' is machined in the mating part for a 'perfect' fit?.

Someones interpretation??.

 

What kind of fit do you want?

 

There are many different kinds of fit from the slackest recognised level of clearance fit to the tightest form of interference fit, all have specific tolerances and all could be seen as perfect depending on the application. Just in clearance fits alone there are five different kinds, all with their own different tolerances.

 

If you take a locational clearance fit for example this is the closest form of clearance fit, it is used in things like locating pins that precisely align parts, often used in mould tool making. The difference between hole and shaft at 1.000" diameter would be in the region of 0.0005" or half a thou. If you went for the slackest recognised fit then it would be a loose running fit where the difference would be 0.004" or four thou over the same 1.000" spec.

 

The world of custom built rifles will certainly operate towards the slackest end of this scale when it comes to things like tenon dimensions and Im sure that will be more than good enough to build very accurate rifles.

[Ronin]

I really have nothing to prove,

 

Hand on heart I build rifles to the best of my ability, I don't advertise, I don't need to and I've been doing so for nearly ten years.

 

My rifles have competed in comps in Europe and USA and won several medals - that includes builds for myself and others.

 

It seems some want to turn this into a "holier than thou", pissing competition

 

What is apparent, is that the "accuracy" rifle smiths here and in the USA all work to close tolerances and get results, as a interested amateur I strive to achieve the same standard, the "nay sayers" obviously are happy with mediocrity.

 

 

Ill say no more on the matter.

[Laurie]

What is apparent, is that the "accuracy" rifle smiths here and in the USA all work to close tolerances and get results, as a interested amateur I strive to achieve the same standard, the "nay sayers" obviously are happy with mediocrity.

 

 

Ill say no more on the matter.

 

 

I've got to say I agree with you on this. There is a reason, and it's not 'fashion' why some gunsmiths' reputations are very, very high and their services are in great demand. Their rifles win when in the hands of good shooters and if they don't work for any reason, the gunsmith will do his utmost to sort it out and find the cause.

 

It is subjective and entirely in the mind of the buyer. If he or she is willing to pay for 'the best', well that is his or her choice in a free market. Conversely, if the buyer decides there's a lot of hype in the business and that somebody with a lesser reputation and shorter build time is going to turn out something 'just as good' since nobody can really produce stuff beyond a certain level of tolerance and that the end result will be cheaper but just as good, then that's their prerogative as well. Personally, I'll always use the best I can afford if it's a custom gun and given some of the discussions on this forum, that'll apply to many other members. I would like to have been able to try my Savage + pre-fit barrel projects though. Would it have worked? I reckon the answer is 'yes, but only to a certain point', and that variables would have kicked in. If you did it with six barrels, one would probably have been up to the best custom rifle standard, one would have been a complete 'dog' and the other four somewhere in between. .... or maybe four would have been 'OK' and two 'dogs'. I'll never know now.

 

But it's also back to 'horses for courses' - there are a lot of screw the bits together black rifles around and modern factory products that really impress as to how well they shoot. They won't win BR matches other than 'Factory Class', but their owners neither want or need them to. It's the old story that getting an extra 5 or 10% of performance out of a generic design takes 100 or 200% greater expenditure and getting the final 1 or 2% of potential performance out of any competition machine is more expensive still.

 

There are other issues too that may take the process away from the lathe and milling machine. If it's a synthetic stock, does your gunsmith check whether it's straight and whether it'll cant the action as received from the factory, and if so he'll true it up? As we increasingly see CNC machined chassis stocks and likewise very consistently produced bedding blocks go into traditional stocks as alternatives to bedding jobs, some of the traditional 'hand-work' in rifle building is being removed to nearly every gunsmith's great delight since none that I've met enjoys this aspect of the job.

 

However, would we be having this discussion if this were a F1 car constructors' forum, oceangoing yachting forum discussing what might win the America's Cup, or even cyclists at Tour de Whatever level? I think not. Fortunately competitive shooting isn't as expensive or reliant on cutting edge technology and materials as these sports and hopefully never will be, but it is a technology based activity and the best builders using the best materials are still producing the most winners so far.

[Big Al]

More duplicate posts, sorry guys I dont know why this keeps happening?

 

[Big Al]

I really have nothing to prove,

 

Hand on heart I build rifles to the best of my ability, I don't advertise, I don't need to and I've been doing so for nearly ten years.

 

My rifles have competed in comps in Europe and USA and won several medals - that includes builds for myself and others.

 

It seems some want to turn this into a "holier than thou", pissing competition

 

What is apparent, is that the "accuracy" rifle smiths here and in the USA all work to close tolerances and get results, as a interested amateur I strive to achieve the same standard, the "nay sayers" obviously are happy with mediocrity.

 

 

Ill say no more on the matter.

 

 

Im not really sure why my point seems to keep being missed, I can only think Im not making it clearly enough.

 

Throughout this thread I have never said that close tolerances are not important, what I have said is that tolerances are relative and have questioned those who try to show us perfection in terms of tolerances with some kind of suggestion that it will be better than good enough tolerances.

 

By the use of the term 'good enough' I dont mean a mediocre rifle built to shoddy standards and unacceptably large tolerances, I mean a rifle that will shoot with the best, built using the best components and built by a very skilled rifle builder. At no point have I ever criticised you for trying your best Ronin or trying to work to what you consider +/- 0. All I have tried to do is raise the question of how good is good enough in the context I have just described.

 

To use Laurie's analogy of F1 as an example, I know the owners of two different companies in the North East of England who both make parts for the F1 industry, one of them works in exotic metals in both the engine and suspension areas, the other in carbon fibre for suspension and chassis, both have supplied to this industry for more than 10yrs and neither have to work to +/- 0.

 

Im not sure if your including me as the instigator of your 'holler than thou pissing competition' as you put it but if so then I apologise if I have made you feel this way, it was never my intention, I am just looking to have some interesting discussion with like minded people who have an interest in the acceptable working tolerances of precision rifle building.

 

Laurie,

 

"There is a reason, and it's not 'fashion' why some gunsmiths' reputations are very, very high and their services are in great demand. Their rifles win when in the hands of good shooters and if they don't work for any reason, the gunsmith will do his utmost to sort it out and find the cause"

 

I agree with you that perception can be everything to many and also the confidence that their rifles were built by those regarded as the best may well help them to maintain the edge over their competitors, even if it could have more to do with psychology rather than engineering. I have found in a number of different things in life that when people come to spending their hard earned money they want 'the best' and will often buy once and cry once, Ive done it both ways in the past myself with mixed results and not always how I expected.

 

What I have also found (to use a different analogy) is that if everyone fishes with the same fly then all the fish are caught with it, it doesn't take long before this fly has legendary status and getting them is the be all and end all of a fishing trip.

 

I dont know much about competition shooting but I would imagine its fair to say that the individual shooters finely honed technique, his ability to cope under pressure at critical times and his ability to read the wind will all go a very long way to making the cream rise to the top. What I could then imagine happening is that what then his peers will often think the only difference between him and them is that he is using a rifle built by a certain rifle builder, before long many are using the same rifle and the rifle builder has a long waiting list. Long waiting lists are often very desirable things for some people to be on.

 

Im not trying to knock those rifle builders with long waiting lists, Im just trying to rationalise some of what is being said here

[Offroad Gary]

What the hell has supply to the motor industry got to do with precision rifle machining? Everything about bulletflight stems from alignment of the centre line of the bullet/bore and concentricty of the kit that launches it. Less aligned and less concentric WILL always be worse.

 

Can i ask who built your rifles and why you chose them to do it? Genuinely interested

[Big Al]

What the hell has supply to the motor industry got to do with precision rifle machining? Everything about bulletflight stems from alignment of the centre line of the bullet/bore and concentricty of the kit that launches it. Less aligned and less concentric WILL always be worse.

 

Can i ask who built your rifles and why you chose them to do it? Genuinely interested

 

If you dont see the connection in relation to this discussion Gary then I would question the rest of your post? surely you can see that precision machining is what goes into precision rifle machining and the discussion over tolerances is the whole key to this thread - how 'good' is 'good enough' and at what point does better than 'good enough' no longer translate to any measurable difference?

 

I have never commissioned a rifle build, I have always bought rifles that were built by a recognised builder with a good reputation, my 20BR was built by Dave Folwell of Bowtec who may not be so well known here but he is well known to some people on this forum, my 20TAC was built by Neil McKillop, again Im not the first owner - with rifles are what I consider very accurate and both have shot 1/4" or better on those occasional good days. I have no idea what tolerances either of these rifle builders work to but it would be fair to assume 'good enough'

 

If I was to commission a rifle build I have in the past spoken to Baldie, Callum Ferguson and James at Jaeger Sporting and all of them have given me enough confidence to spend my money with them, interestingly none of them talked about the need for perfection, just a high enough standard of work to achieve the desired result.

[Laurie]

I dont know much about competition shooting but I would imagine its fair to say that the individual shooters finely honed technique, his ability to cope under pressure at critical times and his ability to read the wind will all go a very long way to making the cream rise to the top. What I could then imagine happening is that what then his peers will often think the only difference between him and them is that he is using a rifle built by a certain rifle builder, before long many are using the same rifle and the rifle builder has a long waiting list. Long waiting lists are often very desirable things for some people to be on.

 

 

 

 

Ha! Ha! - it were always thus to some degree. You see it most sharply with whichever make of barrel is currently 'in', the irony being that often a few top people in the know switch to a new maker's products because they're known to be a competent bunch of people but being new their barrels are available without long waiting lists. A number of top comp wins later, everybody wants their barrels and they have a 12 month back-order situation like everybody else!

 

With rifle builders, there is this effect too, but looking back over many years, I still think there is a 'hard core' of individuals who built up their reputations through producing quality work, not just in the competition field, and creating a core of very satisfied customers who not only went back with more business but passed the good word on. Reputations are still largely made (and sometimes destroyed too) by word of mouth, the UK custom gun (and that of fettling factory rifles too) activities being fairly small. It's not just about 'engineering excellence' of course. He or she who can provide the visually stunning (whether in traditional figured walnut and chequering or custom paint work as in Mole-e30's three new short-range bench guns via CNC-machined bits done in cerakoate or anodised finshes) meets a growing need from customers too. And lastly as in any such business arrangement, the ability to listen to the customer and build a good relationship founded on a reliable service with a good after-sales service too.

[Offroad Gary]

Perhaps Callum will read this and change his company slogan to "dedicated to achieving just enough accuracy"... In fact, even UKV could change its slogan to "the place for sloppy rifle enthusiasts, and forragers"...

[1967spud]

A slight side thought on this. Do the rifle builders that actually shoot the more precision dedicated disciplines, benchrest, f class and the like produce a rifle with tighter tolerances as they know what it takes- yes i think they do and good job they do.

[SWShooter]

This thread has got very interesting , as a layman I guess this is what I call a gunsmith http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gunsmith ,so a gunsmith is someone who can scratch build / shotgun a rifle rather than someone who assembles one from bought in parts along with a bit of machining , that would be a firearms assembler ?

 

I`m pretty impressed with this lot though http://hollandandholland.com/gun-room/

 

Barrel making http://hollandandholland.com/gun-room/gunmaking/