Making an under-barrel saddle sling stud.








I used an adjustable boring bar for the last several cuts. The final hole is .980" dia. in a 1" round stock. For the mathematically challenged, that leaves about 4 RCH on each side. My sphincter was tied in a double half-hitch on the last couple of passes. Now on to the hand work.

Nice work !

quote:

Originally posted by Bitterroot:
The final hole is .980" dia.

Holy cow that's a monster!

quote:

Holy cow that's a monster

Excellent work!

If you don't mind me asking, what does RCH stand for?

And did you make the ball-turning attachment yourself?

Peter Connan asked:

quote:

what does RCH stand for?

RCH is a universal unit of measurement that works equally well in both the Imperial and Metric systems, and is most often heard used in the construction trades, but works well in the Gunmaker's shop also. It's origin of use as a unit of distance is unknown, but most likely developed by the Irish.

Yes, my son made the ball turning tool in our shop.

Common in the printing industry as well. We had a particularly attractive red haired customer service gal named Rhonda..........

Just giv"er another R Sam.

Tha's nice...very traditional appearance. Did you ever get those screw on butt swivels doped out. I sure like your banded swivel design.

Duane,
I have the Dakota/Ken Howell-design inletted studs.

quote:

Originally posted by Bitterroot:
Peter Connan asked:

quote:

what does RCH stand for?

RCH is a universal unit of measurement that works equally well in both the Imperial and Metric systems, and is most often heard used in the construction trades, but works well in the Gunmaker's shop also. It's origin of use as a unit of distance is unknown, but most likely developed by the Irish.

Yes, my son made the ball turning tool in our shop.

I laughed out loud about your RCH comment and yes, it's truly universal and very descriptive.

BTW: fantastic work, sir.

Zeke

quote:

Originally posted by Bitterroot:
Duane,
I have the Dakota/Ken Howell-design inletted studs.

Yep...they're nice..fact is I bought a bunch. However, they do not match up with Gas gunners banded swivel eyes...HAR..You know how it goes.

What is the difference, hole size?
If Gasgunner and I could get in sync we'd make a killing.

I hadn’t heard the term RCH since Firecontrol “A” school in 1990. One of our civilian instructors was an older man that could very profane when describing current levels in various circuits. Definitely means something very fine.

Ohhh, that is NICE !!!

Thanks for posting this, now I know the best way to make one of these babies!
Well done.

Very nice!!

Ahhh Now...can you make me one in a banded version ? HAR! Just kiddin

Nice machining!

quote:

Thanks for posting this, now I know the best way to make one of these babies!

I'm not sure if it's the best way but it was the first thing that came to mind.

Nice Work! Thanks for sharing it with us. So would frog's hair be a smaller unit of measure?

Nice!

Brilliant!

Lovely work!

I do think there is an easier way though. So if I may, perhaps it can be of use in the future:
On a couple of occasions recently I had to make bases that fit on round surfaces. The method I came up with was to use a ball-nose end mill of smaller size than the finish diameter in multiple passes with a small change in depth and a somewhat larger change in the Y-axis. Actual shifts are of course carefully calculated in CAD software.

If enough passes are made this results in a surface which is very close to correct and can be corrected by sanding on a mandrel in just a couple of minutes.

quote:

I do think there is an easier way though

It doesn't get any easier than boring a hole, to the perfect diameter, that doesn't need any sanding to make it fit.

Yes, your method works for cutting the bottom of quarter ribs or front and rear sights and such, but you can hold those parts in a vise while you make your cuts. This part, no. The head-scratching issue of making many parts is not "how do I machine it, but how do I hold it?"

I'm not saying boring the hole was difficult. But I do feel it created a whole lot of after-work.

I do admit that doing it mmy way would require a change in the order of the work and another method to form the ball.

Whatever, there are many ways to skin a cat, and your method certainly resulted in a beautiful product.

quote:

Originally posted by Bitterroot:

The head-scratching issue of making many parts is not "how do I machine it, but how do I hold it?"[/QUOTE]

In the machining world that’s the understatement of the century.