After reading the headspace repair discussion, I wanted to post this discussion and get some input from the gunsmith's on this site.I know this might upset some of you, but that is not my intention.

When I found out Winchester was closing their doors in New Haven, I went on a buying spree, picking up new M-70s in calibers that I favored. As can usually be expected from a manufacturer that is about close it's doors, the workmanship and manufacturing process generally suffers a bit if not alot. I picked up two 270 Win. one in a blued classic and the other in a SS Featherweight (both in CRF). Also a 270 WSM in a SS Featherweight CRF and a 300 WSM in a blued Coyote in what at the time they called a Controlled Round Push Feed. In the 270 WSM the bolt is extremely loose fitting. With the 3 position safety in the middle position, the bolt has actually come open while carrying it from a sling over my shoulder. In all four rifles, with the safety on, you can wiggle the front of the bolt in the receiver. The front bolt lugs are not up tight against the barrel. This particular rifle will consistantly shoot 2", and less, groups at 200 yards with handloads in new brass. The remaining three rifles all have the same loose bolt scenario but not as bad and to different levels of looseness. I should also mention that I have two other M-70s made in the 90's in CRF and they have tight fitting bolts under any situation as well as being good shooters. I reload for all. In none of the rifles have I had any ruptured cases or reloading problems except with the WSMs after multiple reloadings (see my post on other discussions), and even these are not severe. In all four of these rifles, when the safety is off and firing pin is against the sear, the bolt feels tight and no movement can be detected. After what I have mentioned, one would think that these rifles have a headspace problem. I have never had them checked but, see no need to until a reloading problem arises.

All of my rifles are bedded except for the Coyotes which are laminated stocks, and the barrels come floated from the factory. The remaining three rifles will shoot sub-MOA in spurts and then go wild sometimes as much as 3 MOA. When cleaning the barrels I've noticed some pretty severe tight spots in the barrel, particularly at the throats and in the last 2 inches of the barrel. After some vigorous copper removal the rifles will usually shoot 1 MOA or less and shooting progresses go back to horrible. (I am working on that problem)

I have come to the conclussion that much hoopla (and money) has been made on re-aligning barrels and selling gimmicks when in fact it mostly boils down to the barrels themselves. I feel this is true for all bolt action rifles including Remingtons, etc. I constantly hear about how Remington rifles are so accurate due to their design yet I am told that most Rem M-700 barrels are not true to the receivers. I have personally seen a couple of M-700s shoot less than 1" at 300 yards. (One of my M-70s made in the 90s will also do this. it should also be noted that the barrel does not copper foul to any of the points I mentioned before)Another point I would like to make is that if it so important to have every thing fitted "just so" then why do so many AR 15s shoot sub-MOA. I know that bedding, triggers etc. play a role, but I sincerely feel it has to be the barrel quality 90 percent of the time.

Again, I am only wanting a reasonalbe discussion here from open minded G-smiths and gun enthusiests.

IMO the loose bolts do not necessarily indicate excess headspace, UNLESS the bolts are also loose with a cartridge chambered. Headspace is the dimension allowed for the cartridge, not the bolt. Check your new rifles with headspace gauges; if OK then don't worry.

Fire-lapping will often cure fouling problems and improve accuracy, I recommend it for at least some of your new rifles.

IMO you're correct about the barrel quality being perhaps THE most important factor in accuracy. Even so, the design of the action can also have a major effect on potential accuracy. The best barrel in the world won't make an accurate shooter out of a poorly-designed action or an improperly-assembled rifle. IMO the AR's proven accuracy stems from its free-floated barrel design, for instance, as does the Remington's from its round receiver. However even with a superior design the action or rifle sometimes could benefit from additional accurizing. It all works together, and each part must be properly made and fitted for best performance.
Regards, Joe

i came to the conclusion many moons ago that if the rifle didn't shoot with a known accurate load that it either went down the road or got rebarreled. my old fried rudy who shot palma team and then coach it kept a case of 308 barrels under his bed. if the barrel didn't shoot his load he threw it away and screwed on a new one.

Rae59, what exact "myths" were you hoping to undo?

If you would care to individually list these "myths" I will do my best to address them from my perspective.

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
IMO the loose bolts do not necessarily indicate excess headspace, UNLESS the bolts are also loose with a cartridge chambered. Headspace is the dimension allowed for the cartridge, not the bolt. Check your new rifles with headspace gauges; if OK then don't worry.

Fire-lapping will often cure fouling problems and improve accuracy, I recommend it for at least some of your new rifles.

IMO you're correct about the barrel quality being perhaps THE most important factor in accuracy. Even so, the design of the action can also have a major effect on potential accuracy. The best barrel in the world won't make an accurate shooter out of a poorly-designed action or an improperly-assembled rifle. IMO the AR's proven accuracy stems from its free-floated barrel design, for instance, as does the Remington's from its round receiver. However even with a superior design the action or rifle sometimes could benefit from additional accurizing. It all works together, and each part must be properly made and fitted for best performance.
Regards, Joe

Joe,

Do you think the Savage and the AR's accuracy also has to do with the barrel attachment systems of using a barrel nut? I know some gunsmiths that feel that way. I also that the arragne Dan Wesson used to hold the barrel in their revolver contributed to their accuracy. You are most correct on the free floating of the AR barrels

Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:
...If you would care to individually list these "myths" I will do my best to address them from my perspective.

1. There are "better" rifles than a factory stock Remington!

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:
Joe, Do you think the Savage and the AR's accuracy also has to do with the barrel attachment systems of using a barrel nut? I know some gunsmiths that feel that way. I also that the arragne Dan Wesson used to hold the barrel in their revolver contributed to their accuracy. You are most correct on the free floating of the AR barrels
Joe

Joe, IMO the accuracy of the Savage stems from its round receiver and the AR's accuracy from its free-floating barrel (with the proper forearm of course). I've seen Savages rebarreled without the nut and still maintaining their same accuracy level or better, so that's my story & I'm sticking to it for now (G).

The Dan Wesson accuracy is a proven fact and some attribute it to the muzzle nut's slight compression of the bore when tightened, causing a slight choke at the muzzle. Others attribute it to the lack of excessive thread compression at the receiver compared to the normal revolver, eliminating the usual tight spot at the leade. BTW the practice of fire-lapping was originally developed to correct this revolver barrel leade thread compression problem, not for rifles at all! The rifle application was a serendipitous development that folks discovered after Merrill Martin published his revolver results in Precision Shooting back in the late '80s-early '90s.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:
Rae59, what exact "myths" were you hoping to undo?

If you would care to individually list these "myths" I will do my best to address them from my perspective.

1. A barrel has to be square and true to the action. i.e. Remington (reread my original post)

2.Everything has to be tight fitting: i.e. bolt to receiver, etc. Usually there is nothing tight fitting on a AR. Most I have fired, the upper is loose fitting to the lower, yet they shoot very well. There are exceptions of course.

3.The geometric shape of the action. I can't for the life of me see why a round action like Remington's,or any other, has anything to do with accuracy. To prove my point, I have been considering having a Remington barrel installed on M-70 action.
I know a gentleman who is a retired stock maker. During an accuracy discussion, he told me he discussed the same subject with several custom competion barrel makers, some who I never heard of. He stated that several of these barrel makers told him that there is absolutely no reason that a Remington M700 should shoot as good as they do. As mentioned, most are not "trued" with regards to the barrel/action. All of them felt that it has to be their barrels.
What do you think?

quote:

Originally posted by Rae59:

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:
Rae59, what exact "myths" were you hoping to undo?

If you would care to individually list these "myths" I will do my best to address them from my perspective.

1. A barrel has to be square and true to the action. i.e. Remington (reread my original post)

2.Everything has to be tight fitting: i.e. bolt to receiver, etc. Usually there is nothing tight fitting on a AR. Most I have fired, the upper is loose fitting to the lower, yet they shoot very well. There are exceptions of course.

3.The geometric shape of the action. I can't for the life of me see why a round action like Remington's,or any other, has anything to do with accuracy. To prove my point, I have been considering having a Remington barrel installed on M-70 action.
I know a gentleman who is a retired stock maker. During an accuracy discussion, he told me he discussed the same subject with several custom competion barrel makers, some who I never heard of. He stated that several of these barrel makers told him that there is absolutely no reason that a Remington M700 should shoot as good as they do. As mentioned, most are not "trued" with regards to the barrel/action. All of them felt that it has to be their barrels.
What do you think?

We all know that a barrel vibrates when fired. They say it's like a sinew wave. Well maybe a round receiver, such as in Remington, the receiver is a continuation of the barrel, that is it's round and not much fatter then the barrel, so this effects the barrel vibration in a better way, then say a receiver that's not symmetrical like Model 70 Winchester. Maybe think of the action as the handle on a tuning fork?

Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:

quote:

Originally posted by starmetal:
Joe, Do you think the Savage and the AR's accuracy also has to do with the barrel attachment systems of using a barrel nut? I know some gunsmiths that feel that way. I also that the arragne Dan Wesson used to hold the barrel in their revolver contributed to their accuracy. You are most correct on the free floating of the AR barrels
Joe

Joe, IMO the accuracy of the Savage stems from its round receiver and the AR's accuracy from its free-floating barrel (with the proper forearm of course). I've seen Savages rebarreled without the nut and still maintaining their same accuracy level or better, so that's my story & I'm sticking to it for now (G).

The Dan Wesson accuracy is a proven fact and some attribute it to the muzzle nut's slight compression of the bore when tightened, causing a slight choke at the muzzle. Others attribute it to the lack of excessive thread compression at the receiver compared to the normal revolver, eliminating the usual tight spot at the leade. BTW the practice of fire-lapping was originally developed to correct this revolver barrel leade thread compression problem, not for rifles at all! The rifle application was a serendipitous development that folks discovered after Merrill Martin published his revolver results in Precision Shooting back in the late '80s-early '90s.
Regards, Joe

Joe,

You theory certainly makes sense. I still fill the Dan Wessons shoot because the barrel is stressed between two points, the receiver and muzzle. I don't think the very short section of the muzzle bore that might become tighter because of the muzzle nut would be enough to affect the bullet that much. Too little too late in my opinion.

It is said that Colt Pythons have a tapered bore. Is this true, had it really been proven?

Joe

Colts have a rep for tight grooves, I personally know this is true with their 44 cals (0.4275"), but mainly IMO the proven accuracy of the Python is due primarily to its tight twist, 1:14" or tighter IIRC. A favorite mod of the PPC and other revolver shooters is to fit a Colt Python barrel to an S&W K revolver, thereby gaining the better accuracy & heavy underlug of the Colt barrel to go with the smoother S&W action.

An interesting experiment concerning round receivers is documented in Harold Vaughn's Rifle Accuracy Facts, where he uses precise instrumentation to measure, quantify and then correct the asymmetrical effects of the different areas of the receiver and their effects on group size. Vaughn's data, along with my own knowledge of the rigidity and symmetry of the round form itself combined with the splendid accuracy record of the round receivers in BR competition, leads me to believe that it's the most accurate in most cases. JMO.
Regards, Joe

Joe,

That's pretty interesting on the testing done by
Vaughn.

Yes Colt's do have tight bores and grooves. I remember smiths re barreling S&W's with Python barrels and calling them Smolts. I even thought of having one done for myself.

Why you think pistols that shot such cartridges as the 30 Luger had so tight a twist?

Joe

quote:

Originally posted by Rae59:

1. A barrel has to be square and true to the action. i.e. Remington (reread my original post)

2.Everything has to be tight fitting: i.e. bolt to receiver, etc. Usually there is nothing tight fitting on a AR. Most I have fired, the upper is loose fitting to the lower, yet they shoot very well. There are exceptions of course.

3.The geometric shape of the action. I can't for the life of me see why a round action like Remington's,or any other, has anything to do with accuracy. To prove my point, I have been considering having a Remington barrel installed on M-70 action.
I know a gentleman who is a retired stock maker. During an accuracy discussion, he told me he discussed the same subject with several custom competion barrel makers, some who I never heard of. He stated that several of these barrel makers told him that there is absolutely no reason that a Remington M700 should shoot as good as they do. As mentioned, most are not "trued" with regards to the barrel/action. All of them felt that it has to be their barrels.
What do you think?

quote:

I have come to the conclussion that much hoopla (and money) has been made on re-aligning barrels and selling gimmicks when in fact it mostly boils down to the barrels themselves.

The amount of "gimmicks" needed will depend on how much accuracy you want.

In answering these "myths" I can state without a doubt that

(1) The barrel and receiver need not be in alignment, unless you need consistency. On the far upper end of the accuracy scale are the BR rifles. They are chock full of gimmicks. Number one among them is alignment. On the other end of the scale are the AK47's. They lack alignment and are as loose as a goose but are very reliable. However they are notoriously inaccurate.

(2) The bolt doesn't need to be tight. It only needs to be tight enough to resist moving as the hammer falls so-to-speak. You don't want any sudden movement pulling the bullet out of alignment with the bore at the last second as the firing pin drops. The less movement the better.

(3) As for round receivers, the majority of custom BR actions have maintained the Remington 700 style round action. Why?

Round actions have a few things going for them, they are easy to true up, are easy to bed, provide a much larger bedding surface, and flex in a more equal and consistent manner than flat bottomed receivers.

As for the accuracy of Remington rifles, I don't know why they work, they just do. I myself have witnessed amazing accuracy from guns that were considered to be way out of whack. I think that says a lot for the design.

As for AR15's, the bolt locks directly into the back of the barrel via the barrel extension which is unaffected by any looseness between the upper and lower receiver. The design ensures that the bolt is precisely aligned with the bore at the time of the shot. And if you'll notice, the barrel extension is also round

Starmetal, I have a Ruger Security Six, mid '80s revolver with a 6" Python barrel. This was made up when I worked at Maryland Gun Works in the '80s. We called it a "Couger". It is truly one of the most accurate revolvers that I have ever owned.

FWIW, Remingtons aren't the only rifles with a sterling accuracy rep. AAMOF in my experience Savages will frequently, very frequently, outshoot Remingtons. In fact IMO Savage offers by far the most accuracy for the money, too bad they're borderline ugly.
Regards, Joe

When I make a receiver I ensure the total indicator runout is .001 on the bore of the receiver. Then the threads, c-ring, lug seats, and face of the receiver are all cut in one opperation, location in relation to the bore is .0005.

This is all well and good and is what one wants to build an accurate action.

Next is the Accurate barrel.

The ends any barrel can be dialed in to absolute perfection "0.0" runout on the indicator prior to thread and chambering.

This still does not ensure accuracy.

With everybody in rush these days I see too many barrels where it's evident the drill has been pushed as hard as a gundrill can be pushed without breaking the drill.

The result is a wandering hole from flex in the long skinny drill stem.

The contour is turned with location on each end
This means the wall thickness on the barrel will vari depending on how much flop or wander there was in the drilling. As the wandering bore barrel heats up the thin side heats up faster than the thick side, forces come into play. This changes harmonics and it gets worse for every shot fired.

The Wandering bore and the need for the floating reamer holder. If every bore ran straight with bore dailed at the ends there would be no need for a floating reamer. Thats why its important to look thru the bore after it is dailed in to see how bad the flip flop of the bore is.

With bad flip flop the whole reamer must be floated, by putting a ball brearing in the back of the reamer and pushing it with a hard polished and perpendicular suface. With this you'll get good tight chamber and good location
because the reamer truly floats with the bore and ocilates on both ends. The tail of the reamer ( the pushed end ) actually runs in a circle on its perpendicular hard and polished surface. The ball brearing eliminates the friction so it can do this and truly follow the bore in every way.

with a truly straight bore in a barrel the reamer float is a ton less critcal and can be reamed with normal reamer holders, Including a pair of vise grips and reamer floated by hand and pushed with the tailstock.

Truth is, few barrel bores run truly staight bores.

When the ends are perfectly dialed. You can look thru the bore and see the flip flop, wandering bore from a drill thats been pushed too hard or is dull.

A perfectly straight bore is easily and accruately reamed, the Neck and throat will have nearly perfect location to the bore.

The neck and throat are the most important parts of a chamber. If a bullet gets and crooked start it will have an unbalaced flight.
Seating handloaded bullets nearly or on the lands will make this less critical and give the bullet a better chance for a more accurate start,This is why seating bullets out works.

To build the most accurate rifle possible, Standards must be set on bore straightness.

This must be an issue between the barrel maker and the customer ahead of time with the understanding that barrels with crooked flip flop bores are just junk no matter how they gauge for diameter because reaming one of these crooked bores is slow and basically a pain in the ass costing time and accuracy.

Long story made short. straight barrels with straight bores that are properly installed shoot awesome with factory loads and good handloads will shoot better than most people can shoot.
Timan

Good info gentlemen, Thanks!