Anyone use the PTG or Manson Reciver Accurizing tools? Specifically, the 2 mandrels, one with a reamer, and the other with the tread cutting tap. If so, what's your choice - standard 1"x16tpi or the .010" oversize version?

If you are doing a real accuracy job, you need to single point the threads.

Opt for the +.010 version. IF the thread isn't straight you can't clean it up by going back with the same size thread diameter. I use them and they work pretty well. The sets come with a reamer for the recoil lug. I don't disagree with Butch's points either, but everyone isn't looking for a receiver accurate to the N'th degree nor do they want to pay for it.

Thanks Butch. I have a 700 receiver, that if I were to guess, came off a 'Walmart' special. In taking it apart, I noticed a couple of thing. 1) the barrel tenon threads are tapered - .010-.012" by my measurement, and 2) I doubt the receiver face is squared. I say this based upon looking at the ring left on the recoil lug and the receiver face. Normally, I'd clean and square everything up on the lathe, but it's down having the ways scraped at this time. I was offered the use of the Manson Receiver accurizing mandrels and thought I ask those with more knowledge than I about their use, and results.

Clowdis,

What are you using to hold the recoil lug during the reaming operation?

What Clowdis said. Otoh, I've been using the standard thread size happily for going on 9 years. In most cases this will produce a perfectly usable receiver. I use the tap and bushings as a mandrel to set the receiver up in the lathe for facing. No matter how far you go with this, you still have a Remington 700, so there are practical and financial limits.

I simply bought all of the necessary taps in .0005 increments, cut the mandrels myself so that I could open the threads a bit at a time until I cleaned the threads up. For all intents and purpose it works exactly the same as the Manson system. I simply have detachable guide rods. There is a center point on the mandrel which locks into the center hole in the tap face to lock the mandrel and tap together between centers in the machine. The receiver is run up the mandrel and tap by hand. I actually have about a dozen different sized rods now and I cut them from 1144 material. Most times I only have to remove .001 to .003 inch to clean and straighten them. I find it works as good or better than single pointing and it eliminates all of the human and mechanical error that comes with single pointing. It is definitely however, not the cheap way to go. The taps alone cost me about $120 USD each plus shipping. I have listened to a lot of peoples claims on how close they get threads with various different methods when they recut them and I have also had the privilege of screwing apart quite a few of the guns these people did and actually tested them for runout. I wasn't very impressed with what I saw. Most ran out close to .010 inch over 9 inches when tested. Some were actually worse than factory. Apparently, most people don't check their work after doing it. But what ever. The cheapest way is to simply build a double cat head and single point them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEkuiriSees


action taps by Rod Henrickson, on Flickr

A good thread with a few misconceptions thrown in.

The goal of "accurizing" or "blueprinting" an action--and not just the receiver--is to make all interacting components square, concentric and coaxial. By doing this, the assembly will be stress-free and remain so for the life of the rifle. It's axiomatic that this is best for good and consistent accuracy.

There are different ways to accomplish this, with each technique having its advantages and disadvantages. One has to be very specific about what is meant when talking about the "best" whatever.

If anyone is interested in receiving copies of instructions for the various tools comprising our "Accuriaing System", e-mail me and I'll have them sent to you. david@mansonreamers.com

Dave Manson

I've been using Manson receiver truing tools for over 5 years and they will true an action better and faster than anyone can do on any lathe other than maybe a Monarch or similar machine and even then I doubt it could be done better. My good friend, Guy Malmborg, was skepticle at first, and you couldn't find a more meticulous gunsmith than Guy, but once he tried the Manson tools he never trued an action on a lathe again.

I stole Mansons idea and bastardized it to my own means (Sorry Dave). The only thing I can add that I found derogatory about using the mandrel to guide the tap.

My system is as follows: The mandrell is cut from 1144 material so that it just slides into the receiver way with no play. The mandrel is held in an ER40 collet in the tail stock of the machine. The center on the nose of the mandrel engages the center hole on the nose of the tap to keep the two in perfect alignment and the tap is locked into an ER40 collet in the headstock. The action is actually slid on the mandrel before setup and after the tap and mandrel are locked together and the headstock of the machine locked, the action is simply screwed up the tap by hand.In this way, even if the tap is not 100% straight, it will still single point the threads 100% straight, though it may have a small, but almost immeasurable amount of over sizing.
At first I just used a .010 inch oversized tap with the system I created from Daves idea and I had varying results after recutting the threads. After recutting, I would thread a stub in the machine to a class 4 fit to the receiver, not removing the stub from the machine to ensure perfect alignment and screw the action on to it and insert a close fitting mandrel into the receiver and and check the run out of the mandrel at 9 or 11 inches. Things were not always working out the way they should have.
(I never reuse a stub. Once it comes out of the machine it's scrap)



As I said, I initially had some run out in the odd one after recutting and checking them. I finally concluded that the mandrel was flexing ever so slightly if I took too large of a cut and was causing the run out. After coming up with that, I purchased taps from the standard dimensions and up in .0005 increments so that I could take smaller bites and the problem magically went away. I used to single point cut the threads in cats heads. I can get them no truer by single pointing them than I can by using the taps. I have always cut a stub in the machine and checked every one, (just in case) so I know that the system does work.

The only problem with using the taps is the horrific cost. For the guy who just does the odd one, buying Daves tooling or single pointing is much cheaper and accomplishes exactly the same thing. I think Daves tooling probably holds a bit truer on heavy cuts because the mandrels are hardened. I'm just using unhardened 1144 and it's probably pretty limp and can't take heavy pressure.

Interesting approach. How do you clean up the lug abutments and the end of the receiver? Have you ever dyed the threads or somehow checked if the progressively larger taps are cutting on one side? It seems like the tap would have a very strong propensity to follow the existing threads. Sort of like trying to side cut with a drill.

With the single point method you can usually see it clean up the old threads on one side as it straightens them.

Chad at LRI uses a thread mill to true up receivers in a CNC mill. Have you ever measured one of his actions with your stub approach?

Yes, I spray a bit of Dychem on the threads before I start so I can track where I'm at. I see no point in over sizing them and causing un-needed wear and tear on the tooling. The taps will generally do an egg shaped cut, cutting more or only on one side and heaviest at the back first many times. Oddly enough, most are cleaned up to 90% in the first .001 to .002 inch of oversize. I very seldom have to go beyond .003 over the stock size to clean off all of the layout fluid. (That's .003 inch overall. Not per side) I generally run each tap in and out several times with lots of oil every time. I made a ring which clamps over the front receiver ring to prevent damage and hold the receiver stress free and a wrench that fits the ring. I find Sulflo works best on the carbon steel receivers and Buttercut or Walther Threading Wax on the stainless ones. It definitely allows for more precise control of what you take per cut than single pointing does and I don't run into the chatter problems I often got with single pointing. But fewer and fewer people are having it done these days because of how cheap custom actions have become. So it probably isn't worth the investment.

I generally lap the lugs in rather than re-cut them now days. I don't think you gain a thing by re-squaring them. Logically, if both lugs are bearing 90% or 100% there will be no torquing or twisting on load up. Re-squaring won't hurt anything but I think it's like putting lipstick on a pig. Cosmetically it may look better, but the function is not improved. At some point you have to sit down and ask yourself if what you are doing is logical and mechanically advantageous to the system and your customers, or are you just selling snake oil.

You have to do what you think is right in your own mind I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by 2Barrels:
Clowdis,

What are you using to hold the recoil lug during the reaming operation?

I put a block of wood in the mill vise and cut a recess to closely match the outside and I.D. of the recoil lug. That will keep the lug flat and keep it from turning while I push the reamer through.

quote:

Originally posted by jpl:
Interesting approach. How do you clean up the lug abutments and the end of the receiver? Have you ever dyed the threads or somehow checked if the progressively larger taps are cutting on one side? It seems like the tap would have a very strong propensity to follow the existing threads. Sort of like trying to side cut with a drill.

With the single point method you can usually see it clean up the old threads on one side as it straightens them.

Chad at LRI uses a thread mill to true up receivers in a CNC mill. Have you ever measured one of his actions with your stub approach?

I'll catch some flack from this, But I questioned Chad on his setup using a thread mill and he didn't care for my comment. You can have all the great equipment in the World, but a flawed setup defeats everything.
He had the receiver set up vertically in a 3 jaw indexer on his CNC mill. I told him that he could indicate a test bar in the raceway bore, but asked how he adjusted for cant in the receiver. I asked if he shimmed his indexer. He did not offer an answer.
If you are going to the trouble to square up a receiver it can't be done with a flawed set up.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:

quote:

Originally posted by jpl:
Interesting approach. How do you clean up the lug abutments and the end of the receiver? Have you ever dyed the threads or somehow checked if the progressively larger taps are cutting on one side? It seems like the tap would have a very strong propensity to follow the existing threads. Sort of like trying to side cut with a drill.

With the single point method you can usually see it clean up the old threads on one side as it straightens them.

Chad at LRI uses a thread mill to true up receivers in a CNC mill. Have you ever measured one of his actions with your stub approach?

I'll catch some flack from this, But I questioned Chad on his setup using a thread mill and he didn't care for my comment. You can have all the great equipment in the World, but a flawed setup defeats everything.
He had the receiver set up vertically in a 3 jaw indexer on his CNC mill. I told him that he could indicate a test bar in the raceway bore, but asked how he adjusted for cant in the receiver. I asked if he shimmed his indexer. He did not offer an answer.
If you are going to the trouble to square up a receiver it can't be done with a flawed set up.

You're absolutely correct Butch. You have to have something to align too, before you can align anything. If you want it aligned to the OD of the receiver, his method of execution wold be just fine. Providing he finds center of the receiver on his X and Y. The lineal alignment would be taken care of by the square of his chuck. As long as it was a good, square chuck. The problem with his system in the real world is that people don't care about the OD. They want the bolt body aligned lineally and axially with the cartridge and the cartridge lined perfectly lineally and axially with the bore. We don't truly know if this really makes the guns shoot any better. It's just a theory that no one can actually prove. But that's what people want and that's what people are paying for.

It could be done. Set the receiver up in a chuck on the rotary table in the CNC. Then use a coaxial indicator and a rod through the bolt way to zero the rotary table lineally and axially using bolts in the toes of the rotary and using toe clamps to hold the rotary to the table. Then you could rotate the rotary to zero your threading tool to the existing threads and interpolate them. Theoretically.

It took you guys longer to write up these silly setups than it takes me to true an action.

Merry Christmas!

Of course.
I took typing when they still used Remington's to make all the bap bap bapping and the only reason I went to that class was to watch all the girls in class when the teacher said: "ELBOWS OUT, EYES LEFT!" Yes, that elbows out was very stirring.
As for Butch, he was hatched much before the ratta-tat-tat era. Some time after stick in mud and slightly before hammer and chisel so he types even slower than me.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
I told him that he could indicate a test bar in the raceway bore, but asked how he adjusted for cant in the receiver.

I think this is what he does (indicates in the receiver using a mandrel through the center of the receiver). This thread shows his old fixture with jack feet:

http://forum.snipershide.info/showthread.php?t=91240

I'm curious if any other parties have checked his work though. speerchucker mentioned that he threads a stub in his lathe, screws the receiver onto it and measures run out.

quote:

Originally posted by jpl:

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
I told him that he could indicate a test bar in the raceway bore, but asked how he adjusted for cant in the receiver.

I think this is what he does (indicates in the receiver using a mandrel through the center of the receiver). This thread shows his old fixture with jack feet:

http://forum.snipershide.info/showthread.php?t=91240

I'm curious if any other parties have checked his work though. speerchucker mentioned that he threads a stub in his lathe, screws the receiver onto it and measures run out.

What photos?
Yeah Rod, I use one finger. I took typing classes for the same reason. I barely passed with 20wpm.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:

quote:

Originally posted by jpl:
Interesting approach. How do you clean up the lug abutments and the end of the receiver? Have you ever dyed the threads or somehow checked if the progressively larger taps are cutting on one side? It seems like the tap would have a very strong propensity to follow the existing threads. Sort of like trying to side cut with a drill.

With the single point method you can usually see it clean up the old threads on one side as it straightens them.

Chad at LRI uses a thread mill to true up receivers in a CNC mill. Have you ever measured one of his actions with your stub approach?

I'll catch some flack from this, But I questioned Chad on his setup using a thread mill and he didn't care for my comment. You can have all the great equipment in the World, but a flawed setup defeats everything.
He had the receiver set up vertically in a 3 jaw indexer on his CNC mill. I told him that he could indicate a test bar in the raceway bore, but asked how he adjusted for cant in the receiver. I asked if he shimmed his indexer. He did not offer an answer.
If you are going to the trouble to square up a receiver it can't be done with a flawed set up.

Chad is never to be questioned!!! Just kidding of course, but I don't know about this setup either.

Chad's setup as pictured at that time was an indexer with a 3 jaw chuck. With whatever precise tooling coming out of the raceway, you can indicate it at one point to center it. Now what do you do to take the leaning or canted receiver? Maybe he ground the receiver first to alleviate this?
Hopefully you have been around the shop enough to understand what I am typing.
I'll say this again, it is a waste of time and money to do it on a (Remington) hunting rifle. The later model 700s are done on CNC machines and are very straight. Barrels are all over the place and the triggers are junk.

20 (WPM)Women Per Minute is pretty damned fast Butch. Yer eyes must have been pretty damned good back in the day! he he