I definitely agree with bartsche about NOT shooting ammo loaded by someone else, OR shooting anyone elses weapons with their reloads...from first hand experience...and that also stopped me from reloading for friends and family members...AND tuning their reloads and rifles...not worth the risk.

I was lucky to get only a slightly sprained wrist and major hand sting and the S$W 44 mag wasn't damaged...it wasn't my gun OR reloads!!!

I still advise and teach, but they do ALL the work and use their own reloading tools in THEIR home/shop/manuals, and shoot on THEIR range. If they want to load beyond SAAMI specs, I head out and I wouldn't even hunt with them if I suspect that they have broken out with a case of stupid. No problems so far.

We all live and learn. HOPEFULLY some will learn from reading experiences on the web WITHOUT having first hand experiences to contend with.

I'm sure there are many who have been there and done that.

Luck

quote:

Originally posted by FMC:
I think it is inexcusable and frankly negligent if a gunsmith does not. It is imperative to ensure the job performed actually functions appropriately: ie rifle/action feeds and fires accurately.

The top smiths do that.

Sorry but all of the "top smiths" do not. Just depends on who your Smith is. Mine is one of the best on the planet and does not test fire. NEVER has he had one returned because of a problem that would have been discovered by a test firing.

That said if a customer asked for it to be fired or sighted in he will do that only upon request. Actually used to do some of that for him when he was here in Texas.

My friend, former gunsmith, and business partner, the late Harry Creighton, used to test fire all his barrel jobe. His shop was iin the middle of Nashville, Tennessee, only a block from the federal courthouse, and he had no indoor range for the purpose.

He built a bullet trap out of 8" siameter steel pipe, closed at one end, and supported by a bipod, so that it resembled an 81mm morter. This was filled halfway up with sand and featured a lid with a 2" hole in it, held in place by a spring device.

Eash time Harry completed a barrel job, he would leave the action wrench (sa two handled affair) on the receiver, check the headspace, load the action and, holding the reciever by the action wrench, fire the barrelled action into the bullet trap. The noise was minimal and the recoil dampened by the heavy wrench. He then marked the barrel CP, for "Creighton proofed" and proceeded with the rest of the job. I don't recall his ever presenting the customer with a fired case, although tht seems like a good idea.

The loads were about 30% overloads.

When he testfired my .505, however, he used a different procedure, involving a tire, a rope to tie the barrelled action to the tire and a long lanyard to pull the trigger with. The same procedure was used with my .577, when it came on the scene.

quote:

Originally posted by Boss Hoss:

quote:

Originally posted by FMC:
I think it is inexcusable and frankly negligent if a gunsmith does not. It is imperative to ensure the job performed actually functions appropriately: ie rifle/action feeds and fires accurately.

The top smiths do that.

Sorry but all of the "top smiths" do not. Just depends on who your Smith is. Mine is one of the best on the planet and does not test fire. NEVER has he had one returned because of a problem that would have been discovered by a test firing.

That said if a customer asked for it to be fired or sighted in he will do that only upon request. Actually used to do some of that for him when he was here in Texas.

Frankly that is THE reason I will NEVER build or buy another ACGG gun. I actually wanted my rifles to feed and shoot.

In retrospect it is my fault I didn't request the rifles actually feed a cartridge whenever I cycled the bolt. Thank God Kevin Weaver and my local gunshop guy know how a bolt rifle is supposed to work as they fixed the rifles.

I hunt with my rifles and don't care how pretty they look. I guess if your rifle is gonna be in the safe and taken out only for show and tell you need not fire or see if it works.

The top smiths in my book are hunters who build rifles that actually work- Echols, Holehan, Sisk, Weaver etc.

PS the only ACGG gun I have that was good from the start is my Johnson & Gervais .338 Win, which I bought second hand.

quote:

Originally posted by FMC:

quote:

Originally posted by Boss Hoss:

quote:

Originally posted by FMC:
I think it is inexcusable and frankly negligent if a gunsmith does not. It is imperative to ensure the job performed actually functions appropriately: ie rifle/action feeds and fires accurately.

The top smiths do that.

Sorry but all of the "top smiths" do not. Just depends on who your Smith is. Mine is one of the best on the planet and does not test fire. NEVER has he had one returned because of a problem that would have been discovered by a test firing.

That said if a customer asked for it to be fired or sighted in he will do that only upon request. Actually used to do some of that for him when he was here in Texas.

Frankly that is THE reason I will NEVER build or buy another ACGG gun. I actually wanted my rifles to feed and shoot.

In retrospect it is my fault I didn't request the rifles actually feed a cartridge whenever I cycled the bolt. Thank God Kevin Weaver and my local gunshop guy know how a bolt rifle is supposed to work as they fixed the rifles.

I hunt with my rifles and don't care how pretty they look. I guess if your rifle is gonna be in the safe and taken out only for show and tell you need not fire or see if it works.

The top smiths in my book are hunters who build rifles that actually work- Echols, Holehan, Sisk, Weaver etc.

PS the only ACGG gun I have that was good from the start is my Johnson & Gervais .338 Win, which I bought second hand.

I can understand your comment however feeding can and is checked without firing. I have a Smith who is ACOG but one of my safes is full of rifles built by a non ACOG Smith who from my competition rifles and my sporters all shoot little holes and function flawlessly period. If you have the right Smith who Really Knows what he or she is doing it is not an issue. To each his own however but when checking for function he never let a rifle out of his shop and I watched him build more than I can count that did not feed like a Swiss watch, firing pin drag on the shroud, firing pin centered and or bushed, crown and chamber cut to perfection, bedding flawless as well as the glue in that was done on BR actions, blue printing when needed not just to actions but to Jewell competition trigger's which one must feel to believe. Many other details that I could go into if you are interested.


Not all builders go to this extreme but after watching Speedy build too rifles to count it is just his Anal attention to detail that makes him not only a HOF shooter but a great Smith and Instructor. One last thing Speedy can take a blank tube, stock from HS for example, trigger, HS detachable mag, and make a finished rifle in 24 hours and that includes fluting and milling the stock for a perfect fit ---- absolute perfection. Have a couple we made this way and that includes making sizing and seating dies.

Not too many out there that can do that and still put out a perfect product. Like I said it just depends who your Smith is.

I test fire every rechamber multiple times.

I check for extraction issues.

I check for pressure issues.

I check the extracted case for any abnomality.

SAAMI requires for all chambers to be proofed.

Any insured gunsmith will find in the fine print of his policy "comply with SAAMI or CIP standards". They both include test firing.

Nat Lambeth

I've read enough. My glasses aren't handy so please excuse typos.

This has got to be made simpler, so I've decided to just have the barrel pre-chambered, and pre-threaded. That way at least is is worth something, and I can have another gunsmith install it for me.

I'm done with complesities. All this talk about SAAMI and CIP is an example, since I clearly said up front that I'm dealing with a wildcat. It's like talking about the moon when the discussion is about stars.

Carry on.

KB

I've seen lots of things get sent out without being actually used- cars, boats, airplanes, in addition to guns.

However, I have NEVER seen a shop or individual refuse a job, whether it is test firing or taking a boat out for a spin.

I think the issue comes up when the customer either thinks it is part of the job at hand or just plain doesn't want to pay extra and so pretends it should be included when in fact it is a separate operation unless specified that it is included.

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:

quote:

Originally posted by Marc_Stokeld:
Malm-

do you save every piece of brass indefinitely and somehow have it coded back to the rebarrel job? Just curious. It seems like it would be a very good thing to do and wish i had been smart enough to think of that and had done that from the begining.

Skunk

I actually save and catalog everyone. I also save seated dummies that I throat for.

Westpac, I wish i was that organized. I do test fire every gun i rebarrel when possible, and usually shoot them for accuracy, but i do not keep and cataloug all the cases.

Semper Fi!

quote:

Originally posted by Mark:
I think the issue comes up when the customer either thinks it is part of the job at hand or just plain doesn't want to pay extra and so pretends it should be included when in fact it is a separate operation unless specified that it is included.

That's right - it is a seperate operation. Actually, I see it as two seperate operations. Test firing to see if it goes bang is not the same as test firing for accuracy.

If the gunsmith specifies that it (bang and/or accuracy) is part of his operations then that's his business. The way he wants to run it is his perogative, and ok with me.

However, I've had too many successful rebarreling jobs, where I was the first to fire it, to be duped into believing it is absolutly necessary. It's more of a comfort to the gunsmith than to me, plus perhaps additional revenue. However, the more a given gunsmith believes it's necessary, the more of a comfort it becomes to me as well.

I've learned a few things from this thread, and I'm even more than double happy with my past experience, with few complications. I'll continue to do the test firing myself, which is what I do anyway, whether the gunsmith fires it first or not.

KB

I wish you luck.
Regards, Joe

Should the gunsmith test fire his barrel installation?

The above is similar to an auto maker selling a car, but not starting it before it goes to the dealer.

It just gives that added comfort that the barrel can shoot and hit the target.

Warrior

When I had my shop, I test fired ALL rebarrel jobs. If it was something I had no dies or ammo for, then the customer had to supply dies and brass, I would load them myself. All rebarrel jobs had 3 rounds test fired. The shop where I west thru my apprenticeship also test fired this way.

Just a simple test firing to see that it goes bang, and doesn't corrupt the brass, etc. is a simple thing, and shouldn't cost a bunch extra. However test firing for accuracy is a different matter, and should be discussed in advance with the customer, IMO, and charged as a seperate service, the extent of which is mutually agreed upon.

KB

If it was any kind of a target or accuracy gun I would want it test fired for a group. Have heard of people buying expensive rifles with accuracy guarantees but just can't understand you have to have the skills to get that accuracy. Boy do they sound like a pain to deal with. If I know what the rifle will do that tells me what level of skill I have to improve to.

They are all "accuracy guns" to me, simply because inaccuracy (whatever that means) is not acceptable with a custom barrel. IMO, test firing for accuracy could be a quandary. There are lots of issues to consider, which is why I think it is important to discuss with the gunsmith.

Frankly, I don't see how a gunsmith can do the accuracy thing justice, regardless of whether it's a hunting rifle or a varmint or a competition rifle. Sure, usually I can tell if a rifle is going to be accurate from the way it behaves with the first loads, but the real accuracy comes after careful load development. That takes a lot more time than I think most gunsmiths are willing to put into it. Doing the real load development is something I enjoy anyway, and I certainly don't want to miss out on that.

That's why I don't understand some of this talk about the necessity for test firing, at an additional cost, supposedly, to the customer. IMO, the gunsmith can't do the accuracy thing justice anyway, and it's superfluous. If he wants to just be sure it is safe to fire and functions properly, that takes little time, unless it involves driving a long ways to the range, just for one gun.

KB

I have done it both ways with my gunsmiths. The one smith actually built an indoor, underground range at his shop just so he could test fire. He did it mainly because he has an accuracy guarantee and he wants to make sure he did his job properly. He also does accurizing so he wants to be able to show the customer the fruits of his labor when they get it back. In his case, I had him build my 6.5-06AI for me and I paid him to buy the reamer and dies as part of the job, which insured me that I had what I needed in the end. He did test the rifle for function and accuracy.

The other I had build a 6.5-284 for me and all they wanted was the barrelled action. That was the way I got it back as well. Either way worked, so I can not say that one way is better or worse from a customer standpoint. They both shoot less than .5" at 100 yards IF I do my part and the winds don't mess with me.

The latest custom barreled action just arrived back from the gunsmith. It's a 7.65x53 Argentine chamber in a #3 contour CM barrel, 21" long. The barrel looks very good, inside and out. I had to order a custom reamer from JGS, and it took a while to make. It's basically just like the std chamber with a shorter throat, and a little tighter specs. I guess you could call it a wildcat, since the reamer is neither SAAMI or CIP. However it's made to shoot factory ammo, and use standard off-the-shelf dies. I have RCBS dies.

The action is a very nice FN Mauser with MK X bottom metal, NECG trigger, LaPour safety. The action feeds and ejects flawlessly. Upon inspection it looks like the gunsmith did a good job squaring and lapping. Both lugs have contact and a little has been removed on the front ring.

I have a very pretty vintage Fajen stock, which is nice and slim for it. I was going to post pictures, but I can't get my computer to read the correct drive, to download the pictures from the camera.

So the rifle is ready to test fire, and weather permitting tomorrow I'll go to the range and test five different factory loads, and two different handloads. I'll drop the barreled action into Hogue stock, like I normally do for testing. The barrel is still in the white, and the action has the original blueing. To finish it out, it will need to be blued, and fitted and bedded into the walnut stock, but it's fine to shoot now in the Hogue.

Again, this rifle is brand new, and has never been fired with the new barrel. I'm the first one to test fire it. This is basically the same process as I have done with the last several rifles done by the same gunsmith. The rifles are:

A 308 on a Ruger SS MKII action, with a custom chamber/throat set up for the 168gr bullet.

A 35 Whelen with a SAAMI chamber on a CZ 550 Medium action.

A 458 WM on a Ruger MKII SS action, with a custom chamber - 45-70 (short) throat. It's basically a wildcat, because it wont chamber factory ammo - handload only. It uses standard 458WM brass and dies.

A 9.3x338 made with my reamer, on a Ruger MKII SS action. Custom dies.

A 9.3x57 on another fine FN action with upgraded trigger, safety, bottom metal, etc.

A 9.3x62 on a FN action, McMillan stock, etc.

A 8x57 on a CZ 550 medium action.

There are others, but I've listed enough. All these rifles were fired first by me. I used factory ammo where I had some and it was appropriate, and I've used handloads in all of them.

I have never given a second thought to the fact that all the rifles mentioned above, assembled by the same gunsmith, were test fired first by me. I never even discussed it with the gunsmith, because I considered the process normal.

I mention all this because the way I've been doing it is not a new thing, and not an anomoly, and I've done it numerous times, completely successfully. There is no luck involved.

If the 7.65x53 goes like the rest of them it will be easy. All are very accurate, and all were easy to develop loads for. Perhaps the most difficult one was the 9.3x57, but compared to some factory rifles it was very easy.

KB

Good luck with that approach, IMO Murphy will strike sooner or later. I've had one chamber ring (10 yrs ago, borrowed reamer) and one slightly oversize base (45 yrs ago, 2nd barrel I ever did) in over 400 rebarrel jobs, both errors were corrected easily but they were still there until I found 'em.

Maybe I worked nuclear for too long, I'm just not comfortable unless I test things before actual operation (grin).
Regards, Joe

J.D.
Murphy watches for opportunity in practically everything.

If I insisted that the gunsmith test fired, I would have to find another gunsmith, and so would lots of other people. They are not set up to test fire, have no blast facility, have no ammo, nothing like that. They do have tools to measure and inspect, and experience.

Like I said before, luck plays little part in it. If a gunsmith wants to test fire, that's his business. If a gunsmith needs to test fire one of my projects, then it becomes my business, and I'll wonder why, when I know darn good and well there are many excellent gunsmiths who have no such need, as part of a barrel installation.

The situation could be different if there was some action work involved, and there was some doubt the rifle would actually fire properly, but the questions about the chamber and barrel installation are answered with measuring tools, and visual inspection.

I have sent just the receiver and bolt, and had a barrel installed. No trigger, no stock, no magazine, no firing pin assembly. Then upon receipt of the barreled receiver, reassemble all the associated parts, and go to the range.

I have also sent the barreled receiver assembly on to another gunsmith for final assembly of the complete rifle, inletting, bedding, metal finish, trigger or safety work, or whatever, and received the finished rifle back, still not yet fired with the new barrel, and then taken it to the range for test firing myself. Murphy has missed his opportunity several times with me.

Some things about the way I do it may be different than other's way. First, I never send an action/receiver to a gunsmith for a new barrel, unless I'm already sure that the action will fire, and will feed, and otherwise function properly. Generally, it's simply rebarreling an action from a previously functioning rifle, in the same or similar cartridge, and in a couple of cases, new actions from Brownells, such as the CZ 550s. By the time the action gets to the gunsmith for a barrel, the bolt face and feed rails have already been made right, or assured right, for the cartridges it is expected to feed.

The two CZ 550s that I bought new from Brownells were tweeked by a gunsmith before sending them to be barreled. The face of the receiver was squared, the lugs lapped, the safety smoothed, the trigger adjusted, and the trueness of the threads, all checked.

I never present the gunsmith who installs the barrels with a bum receiver, too soft of metal, and such as the 1909 Mauser. If I have concerns about my action, I'll have another gunsmith work it over, and make sure it's good, before sending it for a barrel. The cost of the threaded and chambered barrel is one thing, but it costs good money to have it fitted to a particular receiver. That's money I don't want to waste, although the barrel technically could be refitted to another receiver. For me, getting the receiver right is always a prerequisite to barrel installation.

Most of my projects involve more than one gunsmith. Also, most span the time of several years. The 7.65x53 for example, has been in line for perhaps 10 years, and the action saw two gunsmiths before I sent it to have the barrel installed. And it is now due to visit another gunsmith for final finishing.

Do you want to finish it for me, since it will already have been test fired when you get it?

KB

FYI one of the very finest test-fire facilities you ever saw can be done with 4'-5' of heavy-wall STEEL pipe and some thick rubber. Rubber is optional with some folks, all depends upon your gripping technique and permitted sound level.

Bury one end of the pipe into the ground at an angle with the open end a little below waist height. For a slab foundation, break a hole and concrete back around it afterwards. For a conventional foundation, fab & install a dirt-filled container immediately under the floor for the lower end of the pipe.

Use the rubber at the mouth of the pipe, to simultaneously protect the gun's finish and (somewhat) muffle the blast.

The whole thing might cost as much as $100, there's no reason for any smith to go without one. Learned this at TSJC back in the '60s and the local smith has been doing it this way for 40 years now, in the rear of a sporting goods retail store. I can test-fire a 458 Win Mag barreled action with no problems, don't need anything but earplugs and even the plugs aren't necessary more than few feet away.
Hope this helps, Joe

Well darn, it's snowing heavy today, and stacked about 5" last night. So, I drove out the road past the last houses, and parked the truck where the mountain was out the driver's side, put on my ear muffs, and safety glasses, rolled down the window, and shot four factory rounds at the mountain. I'll just have to test at the range later. But today's first firing was helpful, and reassuring, especially after all the scare info and opinions I've learned about in this thread.

I shot only factory ammo today. The PRVI seemed to have more recoil than the Norma. Also of interest, the bolt lift with the Norma seemed normal, but the PRVI bolt lift was a little heavy - about like a handload that needed the powder to be reduced a grain or two. The case head shows a little shiny scuff on the PRVI brass. The primers looked normal. The case head expansion is within normal specs. The overall length of the brass is about .005" longer, on average, in the fired brass, compared to the new ammo in the box. This isn't precise, because I didn't measure the specific brass fired before and after. Next time I'll do that.

Anyway, it shoots sweet. The factory ammo was mostly to let the reamer maker have a variety to measure, in setting the reamer specs. I'll use it, but mostly this rifle is for handloading.

Here are some pictures:















Here's a picture of the stock it will wear, when finished:



Here are some pictures of prior projects that started life with new barrels in a similar way:

9.3x62 - FN Mauser = McMillan stock:


9.3x57 - FN Mauser:


8x57 - CZ 550 medium action from Brownells - take-off factory stock:


35 Whelen - CZ 550 medium action from Brownells, factory take-off stock, Black T metal finish:


458WM on Ruger MKII SS action, Hogue stock NECG sights, Leupold 30mm 2x7. It's off for Gray T now:




Targets:







9.3x338, Ruger 77 MKII SS, Rifle not available for picture since it's off for final finish. Handloads with TSX 250gr:

I think it is only common sense to test fire any gun where one has worked on the chamber or the bore in any respect.

Even factory guns come with screwed up chambers some times, which could have been found before shipping by a simple test firing.

I bought one of the first Remington 7 m/m Mags ever made, directly from Remington.

The first round I fired through it melted the head off of the case, and the action was a pure bitch to open. Had the rifle been test-fired before shipping, that would not have occured.

I have seen other factory rifles where apparently a chip had been caught in the reamer flutes during chambering and the chamber was ringed, scraped, or otherwise damaged.

To me it only makes sense to take a look at what your work has actually wrought, and one of the easiest ways to do that regarding a chambering job is to fire a couple of rounds in the gun...if possible, with different brands of ammo or differtent weights of commonly available bullets in factory loadings.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I think it is only common sense to test fire any gun where one has worked on the chamber or the bore in any respect.

Apparantly it isn't universally accepted as "common sense" or necessary. I'm actually surprised at the feedback, and opinions expressed on this thread. If I hadn't asked, I could have gone on and on, thinking that my gunsmith does it the common sense and commonly accepted way. Of course, I'm not going to say anything, because why mess up a good thing, which has worked for me for 25 or more years.

Even factory guns come with screwed up chambers some times, which could have been found before shipping by a simple test firing.

I bought one of the first Remington 7 m/m Mags ever made, directly from Remington. The first round I fired through it melted the head off of the case, and the action was a pure bitch to open. Had the rifle been test-fired before shipping, that would not have occured.

Well, in the first place you are using a Remington as an example. What did you expect - a fine firearm? So, apparantly there is a good example - where the factory rifles are not test fired, and one in a million or so has a problem. Well, maybe one in a hundred in the case of Remington.

I have seen other factory rifles where apparently a chip had been caught in the reamer flutes during chambering and the chamber was ringed, scraped, or otherwise damaged.

To me it only makes sense to take a look at what your work has actually wrought,

Who has advocated NOT taking a look at the work? It's a matter of how one "takes a look". It doesn't require a shot to take a look, but instead it requires tools and knowing what one is looking at - that's all there is to it.


and one of the easiest ways to do that regarding a chambering job is to fire a couple of rounds in the gun...if possible, with different brands of ammo or differtent weights of commonly available bullets in factory loadings.

I ain't buying that statment. It's flawed. First of all, I doubt any gunsmith would test fire a gun with a new barrel which he installed, unless he had already checked it to be as sure as possible that it was ok and safe to fire. That's where common sense plays in. So, what that says to me is that he test fires it because there is some doubt that he got it right, and doesn't trust his instruments, or doesn't know how to use them, or maybe just doesn't have the proper tools. That would make me nervous too.

Like I said before, if a gunsmith says he wants to test fire, or it's a policy, that's his business, but if he says he needs to test fire, then I believe it's my business to ask why. It's my opinion that test firing is a way of self-insurance. It's for the gunsmith, rather than the customer. There are a lot of squirrely people out there, nuts in the head. A customer coming back, saying there is something wrong with the recently installed barrel, which just blew up, and took his brother-in-laws head off, is somehow the gunsmith's fault, is something to be avoided if possible, or at least have your defense ducks in a row. That's about gunsmith liability, and not so much about the customer satisfaction, or a properly finished product.

Apparantly, some gunsmiths are more nervous about this than others.

KB

To me, forgoing test firing would be like replacing a toilet and letting the homeowner check for leaks after I'm down the road. Shit happens.

Well, I'm glad that I haven't had a problem like this before, and I trust it will turn out well, and I will try to avoid it happening again in the future. I figure this is my last wildcat anyway. On chambers for factory ammo, if a gunsmith wants to shoot it - bang away.

Actually, it's kinda half-ass amusing, or ironic. This imaginary big-problem lurking, and not making its presence known - to me - over a 25 years, or longer period, and with so many rifles involved. Learned something new.

I'll be sure to NOT mention it to my gunsmith. I wouldn't want to mess up a good thing, and rock the boat so to speak. He can go blissfully along, connecting the pipes correctly the first time, and I'll turn on the water when I get home.

KB

Yeah, and the folks who operated the plant at Chernobyl didn't think they needed to check things either....

Different strokes for different folks but I'll keep on test-firing every job and I'll also keep on feeling doubts about any smith who doesn't. JMOFWIW.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
If it's a standard cartridge available OTC or if it's an unusual one and I happen to have cartridges, I always test fire and include the fired case with the barrel. If not, I explain to the owner just exactly WHY I couldn't test fire it and request that he give me a cartridge for the testing.

Just good insurance. Sure, I was there when it went together but, "the best-laid plans o' mice and men gang aft agley....."

The fired case is proof of a proper job. CYA.
Regards, Joe

CYA - that's what I concluded before. I'm not so sure about that last sentence, JD. A fired case is proof of what? A proper job? Hardely.

It's proof that the case is a fired case, and logically some rifle chambered for it, but not necessarily in the rifle in question. That would take a lab to prove. Assuming that an interested third party accepted that the case was fired in the rifle in question, then it's proof that the rifle went bang, and didn't exibit anything unsafe with that cartridge. Then we get into whether the cartridge really represented the norm. Visit to the lab again for proof. Furthermore it's not proof that the barrel isn't bulged, or that it's straight, or crowned properly, or that the throat is proper, oe even that the barrel is actually screwed onto the receiver in question. Lab work again, and so forth. I hope my point on that is clear enough.

As I said, I learned something - I don't know if it's a lot, but something. At least I now know that controversy lurks with this issue, so perhaps it will help somwhere - sometime in the future. If for nothing more, not making a big deal out of if, either way, may make relations with a gunsmith smoother.

I would like to think that I needn't be concerned either way. So, I suppose that if a gunsmith says he fired it himself, that's somehow more reassuring. The funny thing is that I have never thought much about it, and never really felt apprehensive about doing the test firing. It's not that I feel brave or anything like that. It's more like I trust the profesional work of the gunsmiths I've dealt with.

Heck, I feel more apprehensive about shooting my own handloads, than about the safety of the custom barrels I've gotten. That's because I always figured the probabality of a dangerous mistake, was greater with a handload than with barrel installation.

Well, I can be assured again, when I realize that I'm only one customer, out of hundreds if not thousands, if not millions, especially over the years, who haven't overthought it before, and go blissfully along, fouling virgin bores in new rifle barrels, thinking everythng is alright with that. The odds are in my favor.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by J.D.Steele:
CYA - that's what I concluded before. I'm not so sure about that last sentence, JD. A fired case is proof of what? A proper job? Hardely.

It's proof that the case is a fired case, and logically some rifle chambered for it, but not necessarily in the rifle in question. That would take a lab to prove.KB

Let me make one thing perfectly clear.

I test-fire primarily for ME, not my client.

Sure, the case will provide some assurance to him that the job was OK, but the MAIN reason is so that I personally can be sure of the result.

IMO anyone who is SO CONFIDENT in his own infallibility is simply an accident waiting to happen. Like my flight instructor said when we started RG training, "There are those who HAVE, and there are those who WILL!" (land gear-up, grin) That's why he made me memorize and repeat the "three in the green!" mantra, EVERY TIME, when turning onto the base leg.

It's a part of the SOP, designed to prevent unwanted results, and IMO a smith ignores it at his peril.

OK, already, I get it, and no one is changing their mind about this, same as it goes with most debates on the forum.

The only thing it changes is that I've resigned to the path of least resistance, like a mule being taught to accept directions, on a mountain trail.

My delema with the wildcat hasn't changed a bit, since this thread started. To satisfy the gunsmith, I still need to provide ammo to test fire in the fresh chamber, when ready. The handloads can't be done by me, but have to be done by a professional shop. Besides, I can't ship ammo from Alaska. It has to come by ground, from down South. The gunsmith won't make his own, using my dies, brass, etc.

It's a bit stressful, adding layers of difficulties to an otherwise straight-forward job, but most likely it's important to say on the mountain trail, and see where it leads.

KB

quote:

My delema with the wildcat hasn't changed a bit, since this thread started. To satisfy the gunsmith, I still need to provide ammo to test fire in the fresh chamber, when ready. The handloads can't be done by me, but have to be done by a professional shop.

I understand your frustration. I had pretty much the same issue with a smith trying to get several barrels for my PDK wildcats. He added he wanted gauges as well. Since I wouldn't even have brass much less loaded ammo until I fireformed brass in the chamber it was a significant issue. I admit I didn't have the Alaska issue.

What we worked out was he short chamber my barrels. Since they had no sights and it was a mauser it was a simple barrel install for me. As it was he had left the barrels just a couple turns of the reamer short. I did the final chamber work then fireformed the brass and sent of to Hornady for brass.

Probably not a way to skin the cat that will help you.

I've got brass- Norma, and dies- Redding.

Long chamber, and thread would probably work, with final installation/headspace by another gunsmith willing to handload, and fireform. However, there appears to be little flexability.

KB

I had a gunsmith friend who was supplied a pac-nor barrel to install by the customer. When he test fired it, it split the barrel he rockwell tested the barrel and it was dead soft.
Can you imagine if it was returned to the customer and that happened, who'd get sued by who???
by the way, pac-nor gave lip service when called, but wouldnt even replace the barrel. Soured me on useing them for barrels.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I had a gunsmith friend who was supplied a pac-nor barrel to install by the customer. When he test fired it, it split the barrel he rockwell tested the barrel and it was dead soft.
Can you imagine if it was returned to the customer and that happened, who'd get sued by who???
by the way, pac-nor gave lip service when called, but wouldnt even replace the barrel. Soured me on useing them for barrels.

I wish I could just ignore a post like the one above, from back40, but in this case I choose to not ignore it. IMO, that post is a fine example of internet garbage. It's hearsay to start with, and can't be verified. It's slanderous for no good reason. It serves no useful purpose on this thread, and is actually harmful, to both PacNor and the reader.

IMO, it should not only be ignored as though it were an outright lie, but mark down the source under the credability doubtful section.

If you will delete that post, I'll delete this one. If you want to argue about it - go ahead, make my day.

Regards,
KB

Really Kabluey, if you were half as smart as you think you are it would be great.
The smith has the barrel, he has the reciet from the customer, at one point ,another smith tried to mediate. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, I'll give you the name of the smith and his phone #, if you want to pay his time he might fax you copies of things. I've seen the barrel, so it's not hearsay, it's first hand on my part.

I like the toilet and automobile analogys. We're talking about simple quality control. Check the work. Fire a standard load and check the brass. Anybody who doesn't do that is an idiot. Maybe an idiot who is arrogant and has a great rep, but an idiot just the same.

Yup, just like doing a bunch of plumbing and not turning the water on before you leave.

quote:

Originally posted by papapaul:
I like the toilet and automobile analogys. We're talking about simple quality control. Check the work. Fire a standard load and check the brass. Anybody who doesn't do that is an idiot. Maybe an idiot who is arrogant and has a great rep, but an idiot just the same.

Yup, just like doing a bunch of plumbing and not turning the water on before you leave.

"Maybe an idiot who is arrogant and has a great rep, but an idiot just the same."

Perfect, wonderfully said!
Regards, Joe

Have you ever given someone the short answer? Maybe even a little flippant? Because you didn't want to go into the long answer, or because you didn't want to admit to a failing or shortcoming. Do you test fire? No. Why not? because A. "I was there when it was built", or B. It is a pain to do because you have to get the ammo and have a place to shoot and I don't have the knowledge or capability to get the ammo or I don't want to go to the trouble, and also I don't have a place to test fire because I have never gone to the trouble to develop that ability and I've been getting away with this because when somebody asks me I talk down to him with a smartass answer and hope he buys it.

Kabluey,
The fellow I'm talking about is probably a good bet if you actually want some rounds made/sent to test fire your rifle. he has a gun manufacturing license, but likes wildcat stuff and might do it out of curiosity.
Say the word and I'll send you a PM of who he is, and his phone number. You might want to see if he'd help before you call him a liar about the barrel, but please make sure you ask. I'd like to think even a knothead like you can learn something, and realise your not always right.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Really Kabluey, if you were half as smart as you think you are it would be great.
The smith has the barrel, he has the reciet from the customer, at one point ,another smith tried to mediate. If you want to put your money where your mouth is, I'll give you the name of the smith and his phone #, if you want to pay his time he might fax you copies of things. I've seen the barrel, so it's not hearsay, it's first hand on my part.

I'll have you know that I am at least half as smart as I think I am.

And twice as smart as you think I am.

Ok, a little more info helps. You first post was hearsay. The second post has some first hand testimony.

I still have a big problem with naming businesses or names with that kind of info. My experience (first hand, not hearsay) with PacNor has been 100% great.

KB