quote:

Originally posted by Trax:
Id prefer the method of a receiver mandrel to machine the thread and grind the action outer surfaces square & concentric to the centre line of the action.
For the amount of effort that some highly talented smiths put into detailed custom barrels,custom bases machined square and true on the receiver,impecable wood to metal fit,etc,...to then not bother to have the bore in line/centre with the raceways would seem rather odd.

Butch, maybe he'll take one of his existing Mausers and have all that work done to it and then give us a report on the before-&-after accuracy improvement. After all, such a heartfelt opinion should be worth the investment of a few(!) shekels to preserve and enhance the mechanical perfection of his rifle, don't you think?(VBG)

Trax, I'm sure that some smiths DO change all these things about a Mauser. So go find one and do the experiment already, we're interested to see the result!
Regards, Joe

Well believe it or not, I think that I learned something today, here.

I am not a benchrest shooter. Benchrest is an equipment/money game. I did and still do on occasion compete in Position matches. Hunting rifles and Position rifles can borrow some accurizing techniques to enhance accuracy.

I am a pre 64 Win 70 man, period. I like Mausers, Springfields, and US type Enfields. They are all rugged, controlled feed designs that are going to go boom in adverse conditions. They are like Fords and Chevys; not Cadillacs and Lincolns.

What I believe I learned is that the mass of the barreled receiver needs balance to be ultra accurate. That is where the round receivers have it. I could never figure how the round receiver could bed that much better than all of my flat bottom actions. I see now that the bedding is not the issue, but the equal and concentric mass is their advantage.

I will stick with my flat bottom, hard striker hitting, reliable field arms. I pretty much just stay with pre 64 Win 70's because I spend too much money trying to build pre 64 model 70's out of the rest.

I wouldn't bother with trueing up the threads on any of them for sub minute accuracy. If it is a sub standard mauser from either hurry up wartime or suspect arsenal, I will just not use it. Use a threaded mandrel, true up the face, and fitt the barrel close and if the barrel is good it is going to get much better no matter how much money you pump into it. In other words it is plenty good for my purposes.

Airgun, I agree and am glad you got something positive out of this goat-ropin'!

Vaughn addresses both the 'balance' issue and the single-point-thread-correction issue in his accuracy book. His tests are scientifically correct, with only one variable changed at each step.

For those here who would still like specific numbers, I refer you to the book. Vaughn doesn't address Mausers specifically but, via actual group shooting, he DOES address and quantify the 'return on investment' gained from each improvement.

And, he shows a neat method of achieving full thread engagement rather than the usual first 2-3 threads at the shoulder. Many if not most smiths who pride themselves on single-point correction are still unaware of this further improvement in this area.

I highly recommend the Vaughn book.
Regards, Joe

Airgun, don't let yourself be fooled into believing that Benchrest is an equipment and money sport. If that were the case the ultimate winners would be the rich guys, who can afford all the gadgets. I've been shooting BR for over 20 years and I can tell you that spending money does not equate to better scores or, groups. The ability to tune a rifle, read the wind and mirage, along with some luck yields far better results than writing checks.

DocEd save that for someone else. I don't want to hear that BS.

To a certian extent he is right. To a certian extent. As I mentioned previously in this thread I have 2 friends that compete in F-class. They also compete in benchrest, because it gives them another opportunity to shoot

They have very "basic" rigs. They also kick butt. Ryan took second place at F-Class nationals this year. Rem 700, receiver faced, lugs lapped, Bart (if I remember correctly) barrel, Nightforce scope (don't remember power 20 something to 40 something)and mcmillian stock in .284.

The last benchrest match he also won, against light and heavy gun, at 1000. That included beating a member of team hornady. Prize was nice, 1000 bullets from berger and any PTG reamer he wanted.

He has probably $5k in his rifle including scope, another $1k max in reloading equipment. Incredibly basic set up, nothing too fancy.

So sure, if dropping $6k is not a big deal, then no it is not a money sport. He definitely beats almost everyone he comes up against, even people with much more expensive gear.

airgun1,
That statement sure lowered yourself in my eyes. Listen to DocEd.
Your initial expense is approx $2000-$2500 for a complete rifle with all the latest stuff. Add a scope to it. Now 8 yrs later my only rifle expense is replacing barrels. Most BR guys do their own smithing.
Butch

Nat,
I checked the F Class Nationals results and couldn't find his name in the results.
http://nrablog.com/post/2009/1...nship-Final-Day.aspx
Butch

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
Nat,
I checked the F Class Nationals results and couldn't find his name in the results.
http://nrablog.com/post/2009/1...nship-Final-Day.aspx
Butch

Huh, well apparently he is a liar. I will have to give him a call.

Could not find results for him at nationals. Here is a link to the last results I could find for him.

http://bulletin.accurateshoote...h-biggs-wins-f-open/

Ryan Pierce, second place, (1774-87X)

I will call him this evening to see what his scores at national were.

Did you get my PM?

Nat,
I received your PM and will respond after work.
Butch

Turns out he is a liar

He placed second in the fullbore nationals, the above posted link, not F-class.

When I spoke with him last he mentioned shooting nationals and I asked how he placed. He said second. I asked what he shot and he said F-class.

I made the error of putting F-class, and nationals, together. When in fact, he shot his F-class rifle, at nationals, at which he took second.



back to work!

$2,500.00??? C'mon butch. How much is that 36x scope that has been tweaked. I am sure you use a $25.00 Hoppe rest and not one with $1,000.00 top. Let's see what the latest must have trigger is running these days. Sounds like money and equipment to me. Of course you need skill, but you are not going to even be competitive locally with a 722 and K4 Weaver and a sandbag. Let's get real about the expense.

Sure you need skill, but you can win at the national level with an out of the box factory rifle in Highpower with $1,000.00 total investment if you are good enough. A little more emphasis in skill there and not so much on equipment.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
airgun1,
That statement sure lowered yourself in my eyes. Listen to DocEd.
Your initial expense is approx $2000-$2500 for a complete rifle with all the latest stuff. Add a scope to it. Now 8 yrs later my only rifle expense is replacing barrels. Most BR guys do their own smithing.
Butch

Nobody mentioned anything about HiPower. They may shoot a Stevens as far as I know. Your are not up to date on shortrange BR. I use a 45X Leupold and got a Leupold sample when they first came out for $600. I have $100 in my redwood-carbon fiber stock. My Jewell trigger was $200., My Bat DS receiver was $1100., scope rings came with it. A trigger guard was $50. I do get an unpublished price on Shilen barrels when I use them. I do use Rock Creek, Kreiger, and Bartlien barrels also. I do my own barreling and rifle building.
I build and sell my own rests. By the vway I have sold approx 625 units in the last 5 years. www.shadetreeea.com.
I am using every thing that I bought when I built my rifle a few years ago and the only change is barrels. Airgun1, you need to stick to a subject that you may know about and it ain't BR.
Butch

Butch,

Just so you know my friend Ryan (the above mentioned fellow) loves his front rest made by you. He and I were just talking about his choice of rest when I called him about his "nationals" match, which as I stated, was my mix-up.

Now most I am sure do not have your capabilities, but maybe that is a necessity? Below are some prices him and I came up with to build a competetive, albeit bare bones rifle for F-class, BR, Fullbore, etc.

700 action - $300-$400
Kreiger Barrel $300
McMillian stock $500+
Jewel Trigger $190
Recoil lug $20-$30
Scope Rail $100-$150
Scope Rings $100-$150

Course as you know every things is an equation of Time vs. Money. The McMillian stock you could buy, inlet, bed, glue, whatever yourself and save $150+.

Butch am I missing anything for the rifle? Of course you have bags, the rest, reloading, scope, etc etc. $1500 on the low side and of course, the sky is the limit.

airgun, the only BS, on this thread, is coming from you! You obviously don't know squat about modern BR shooting. Stick to what you do know or, get current.

Per the question about "who said Mauser threads usually run true?".

That was a comment from Tom Burgess to z1r.

Tom is deceased. My supposition (and it is only that) is that Tom made that comment based on 55+ years of working on Mausers. That probably constitutes a statistically significant population to draw a valid conclusion from.

Short Range bench rest and long range "tactical", Palma and F-Class shooting are the venues where the most talented shooters, many aerospace grade gunsmiths and the newest techniques, materials, and action designs all come together in the cauldron of competition (survival in the military arena as well).

In addition to marksmanship, visual acuity, discipline, a tough psychological profile, etc, the consistently winning competitors need the best equipment. Not necessarily the trendiest, but certainly the best.

The rest of us benefit from all the new knowledge that comes out of those competitions.

The big question for each of us is what do we do with that information. I am predisposed to quality cut-rifled barrels and pursuing concentricity and normalcy (i.e. perpendicularity) in a rifle. If the return on money spent does not justify spending the money, I am better served by spending less on components and a gunsmith's time, and more on practice ammunition and practice time.

Where and how much to spend is something we have to answer for ourselves.

This discussion has been a bit vituperative, somewhat entertaining (for me) and has given me a lot of ideas and input on how to proceed.

Please,
do,
Proceed.

LD