Let's discuss blueprinting again. I want to know more - learn something for future reference.

So, forming the initial question is important. Let's see -- hummm --

What actions are worthy of blueprinting? What features of the action itself are important in making the selection?

The reason I ask, and hopefully focus the discussion around the desirable actions for the job, is to help with the selection, at least by a process of elimination, and the reason for the elimination or selection.

For a little base, or background info, for starters, most of us know the Rem 700 apparently is a good candidate for blueprinting, and the results can be outstanding insofar as accuracy. Also, most know that the 700 is cloned extensively, and as a practical matter the cloned 700 actions are blueprinted out-of-the-box.

Let's also get past the lengthy and divisive discussion of intended use and arguable benefit in a sporter weight. I think the consensus is that it's beneficial, but the ability to use the extra precision is questionable in a sporter. Let's just say that doesn't matter.

What's important to me is the selection of the really good candidates for blueprinting, for results in accuracy, for satisfaction of having something precise, and perhaps for resale value later on.

If the money is spent on the job of blueprinting, it might as well be on a worthy action. Of course one could always buy one of the really nice 700 clones, and move past this part quickly. But where’s the fun in that?

I'll mention some actions that seem to me to have the qualities that might make them good candidates: The FN/Win mod 70 short action SPR, the older Winchester Mod 70 short action push feed, maybe a Sako L57 and other Sakos, the Howa action or the Vanguard. I could go on.

Thanks for your input.

KB

What, no Mausers ?

quote:

Originally posted by craigster:
What, no Mausers ?

Only if you say so. If so, then why? If a Mauser is worthy of blueprinting, then which action - FN, MK X, VZ24, etc.?

I have my reasons of why I would exclude a Mauser, but I want to read your reasons for exclusion or selection. My reasons for not choosing a Mauser center around the cartridge selection, and my choices for this kind of project would all be in the 308 length range, so I would choose a short action.

KB

KB
I'd have to say a Stiller's action is pretty attractive when it comes to saving money and time on a build. Just under a grand an you're ready to build on a platform you can trust. That beats the best blueprint in the world in my book. Sometimes it's just easier to buy the correct part to begin with then to spend a lot of time fixing an action

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
KB
I'd have to say a Stiller's action is pretty attractive

Yes, agreed. Good info. It's fun to think about options though. I can see why the 700 clones are popular.

I sure wish I could justify one of these:

http://mcmillanusa.com/mcmilla...s-actions-g30crf.php

KB

You can build hot rods in a couple of ways, buy a Chevy 350 and spend a bunch of money to make it fast or you can spend bunch of money on a racing engine.

Use these action and save some time.

Barnard Precision
BAT Machine
Borden RimRock
Farley Mfg.
Haverkamp
Lawton
Pierce Eng.
RPA Eng.
Stolle (Kelbly)
Stiller Precision
Surgeon

Frank,
Are all those listed 700 clones in one form or another?

KB

Brownell's sells the extremely well built and proven Remington 700 actions and when you add between $200.00 - $300.00 to the price for a quality blue printing job by a competent gunsmith, these actions become a tremendous deal and at a real savings when compared to the cost of the custom Rem 700 clones.

The 700 trance is over for me. The 40x and clones drink the fun out of my paycheck

For the "fun and I built it factor" I would do as Wespac suggested. Aren't the actions Frank listed pretty much "blueprinted" already or do they need more than the way they come?

I mentioned Mausers because I like classic rifles. If I were planning a Mauser to blueprint I would choose one of the following:

M1924/30 Venezuelan FN
M1908 Brazilian DWM
G33-40 Brno
VZ-33 Brno
M1936 Mexican FN
1912 Chilean Steyr

Another, of course, would be a pre '64 M70.

But, comparing Mausers to 700s (and their clones) is in my view comparing apples to oranges.

The more I look at the Stillers, the better they look.

Gotta resist the temptation for a while though.

Lately I've become interested in an AR15 type rifle, so that needs to play out before something else is added to the list.

Several years ago I traded for a Sako L57 while I was on a hunting trip in Texas. The guy I bought it from said he would rebarrel it for me, and I provided the barrel. Instead of doing it himself he took it to a gunsmith buddy and had him do it. The guy was one of those doing high accuracy rifles for target and varmint shooting, and later I was told he blueprinted the action, which accounted for the high dollar invoice for the work done. The rifle is accurate for sure, but I have no way of telling if he actually blueprinted it or not, although that's what I supposedly paid for. I figured it was already done, since it had some wildcat BR chambered barrel on it when I got it.

Anyway, that was my first experience with that.

Now I have one of those FN short action Win Mod 70 SPR actions at the smith's for barreling (a different gunsmith from the one who did the L57 in Texas). I was surprised to learn that both lugs were not making even contact with the seats. So after some discussion I decided to let him go ahead with blueprinting the action.

I kinda think I'll like it better than a 700 clone, or a 700 for several reasons. It has the recoil lug forged with the receiver, and the bottom is flat. It comes with a three-position safety, and CRF with claw extractor. The trigger is adequate, so doesn't need replacing. The bottom metal was good, but I got a Williams piece because it's prettier.

For a sporter it should be alright. After all is done I'll have less in the action that I would using a 700 from Brownells dressed up the way this action is -- safety, bottom metal, etc.

One other side-benefit of this decision is that I don't feel bad about selling off some of my other projects now. When done, this one ought to be very satisfying. Besides, I don't see the need to throw this kind of money at another project soon.

KB

A person does not necessarily need to have a blueprinted/accurized action.
Just like they don't necessarily need to have a rifle with a super match grade barrel,or consistent 1/2" groups, or the most precise and meticulous inletting and checkering,or ultra fancy wood, or indexed screws.

Plenty of game can be effectively bagged using a rifle without all that.

However some people get additional personal pleasure & satisfaction having a rifle put together with refinement,precision,meticulous care.

I would also not be bothered to have a diamond cut, to less than ideal proportions.

KB I sure as hell would not pay a dime unless they could provide me with said Blueprint.

Go to a speed shop and have an engine Blueprinted. They will give you a sheet of what the dimensions were and what they are now.

You should get the same thing from your smith.
It's not hard to indicate the action and write down some numbers then record what you had to take off to to make it right. It adds provenance to the work performed.

Thanks for the advice, but.... no, that's info that IMO I don't need to know, and IMO asking in that tone would be offensive to the smith.

The guy who presently has my action is not the same shop as before. I have a direct relationship with this fellow, not indirect as before through a third party.

The current smith has done work for me before, with no problems. I have adequate confidence that he will do what he says he will do. I see no need to be retentive about it.

He is taking pictures of the project, and I plan on posting a few.

Here are some pictures from the original ad when I bought it. The scope base rail is sold, and replaced with standard Warne two-piece bases. The bottom metal is replaced by Williams.





Here is a picture from the shop showing the importer markings removed.



KB

Keep in mind My tone expressed here would not be the tone used to speak with the smith.

I'd be nice at first and then my attitude would reflect what I was receiving.

The thing is you may not need to know what the numbers are but it would be nice to have. Maybe its just me. Smith says "I squared and trued the action" I ask "how far off was it?" He says "It wasn't bad" I ask again "how much?"
That's just the toolmaker in me. I need a number.

BTW that's a very nice copy of a Winchester M70. What did that set you back if you don't mind?

if this is your path

quote:

The scope base rail is sold, and replaced with standard Warne two-piece bases.

then blueprinting is a waste of time and money --

He said Warne Not WEAVER

Yeah you know a two piece base will cause uneven stress on the receiver could possibly cause the receiver to warp under the stress of holding up an expensive scope.
And that doesn't even be gin to address the issue of lug set back.

The above was all posted in good fun.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
Keep in mind My tone expressed here would not be the tone used to speak with the smith.

I'd be nice at first and then my attitude would reflect what I was receiving.

The thing is you may not need to know what the numbers are but it would be nice to have. Maybe its just me. Smith says "I squared and trued the action" I ask "how far off was it?" He says "It wasn't bad" I ask again "how much?"
That's just the toolmaker in me. I need a number.

BTW that's a very nice copy of a Winchester M70. What did that set you back if you don't mind?

Yea, I see what you mean. It's a matter of due time. I'm sure the "numbers" will be shared with me before the final delivery.

As I recall, I paid $450 for it.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
if this is your path

quote:

The scope base rail is sold, and replaced with standard Warne two-piece bases.

then blueprinting is a waste of time and money --

Well, that's news. There were two reasons I sold the full length base. One is that I like the port to be open on a sporter, and it had a 20MOA rise in it. I just like the cleaner look of two piece bases and 300 yds doesn't require 20 MOA lift in the base.

Also the receiver is D&T for 8x40 threads, so initially I ordered Leupold tactical 2-piece bases, (expensive buggers) but they extend out over the port somewhat, so I put them on my 338, where they fit better. The screw holes on the Warne bases will have to be opened to allow use of the 8x40 screws.

Now I have a question. Just how is it that two-piece vs one piece bases will make a difference in accuracy?

KB

Interesting. A 1 piece base if your action isn't perfect "can" lead to verticle stringing. That is why many will "bed a 1 piece scope base"

I would look to quality 2 piece bases. But what do I know.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Frank,
Are all those listed 700 clones in one form or another?

KB

No, they are not...not unless you know of Remington actions with 3 or 4 forward locking lugs. The RPAs come/came in versions with either number.

The Stolle (Kelbly) "Panda" and "Teddy" models (the Teddy is no longer in production) have massive flat bottoms and are/were available with all four bolt handle/ejection port options...Right handle/right port, right handle/left port, left handle/left port, and left handle/right port. Plus, they are single shot designs with an alumunum action body with steel inserts for the locking lug recesses. The Teddy had a front receiver ring with maybe double the thread and tenon length of a Remington action.

They do not have Remington-style extractors either (neither the RPAs nor the Stolles).

There are lots of custom actions out there which are not Remington clones, unless anything with a bolt handle and forward locking lugs is considered a Remington take off. But then, Mausers have those too, and I think they may pre-date Remingtons just a titch.


As far as I am concerned, any mass produced factory action is a good candidate for "blueprinting". Blueprinting to me means bringing the tolerances down to minimal level, and making dimensions, angles, tempers and polish levels all as close as possible to those called for by the original design blueprints.

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:
Interesting. A 1 piece base if your action isn't perfect "can" lead to verticle stringing. That is why many will "bed a 1 piece scope base"

I would look to quality 2 piece bases. But what do I know.

Give examples of bases to look for please. I thought the Warne were quality, especially since the use of the 8x40 screws is required. The Leupold bases I bought were expensive, so I presume that equals quality. I could go back to them and just let it hang over the port a little.

KB

There's nothing wrong with Warne bases.

I've never bought into the the two piece, single piece deal. If either are made to poor tolerances it will show up upon firing and sighting in.

If either have good surface contact and are machined accurately then both are equal.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
"Blueprinting" to me means bringing the tolerances down to minimal level, and making dimensions, angles, tempers and polish levels all as close as possible to those called for by the original design blueprints.

That's an intertesting distinction. The way I understand it, on some actions it may turn out to not be practical to get as close as possible to original design. An example is the receiver threads for the barrel. If they are not aligned really close the realignment may require some deviation from the origional design specs. I think I remember reading somewhere that it's a common practice to alter the threads significantly to true it up. It's not really a problem, since the barrel threads are cut to match the reciever threads.

So, I'm interested in trueing the action. I probably used the word "Blueprinting" out of context. My goal is for the smith to "true" the action, alignment of the bolt, lugs and lug seats, reciever face, barrel and chamber/bore as close as practical with normal gunsmith tools. If that works out with some small deviation from original blueprint specs, IMO that's ok.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
There's nothing wrong with Warne bases.

I've never bought into the the two piece, single piece deal. If either are made to poor tolerances it will show up upon firing and sighting in.

If either have good surface contact and are machined accurately then both are equal.

That's what I thought, but didn't know for sure. I tried the bases on the reciever looking at contour and surface contact, and they looked fine to me. Of course the Leupold tactical bases looked great too, excpet they are thicker, heavier, and longer, allowing two Picatinny slots rather than one (weaver cross slot) on each base with the Warne.

The main thing is that the receiver is not going to be altered regarding the screw hole for attaching the bases. Later, I can use whatever I want, if deemed necessary. I just had the idea of minimizing the footprint of the bases, for looks primarily, but staying with steel bases. I couldn't find small steel 2-piece bases set up with 8x40 screws, so whatever bases I bought were going to have to be altered for the screw holes, and it was a choice of std Leupold or Warne, and Midway was out of stock on the Leupold when I made the order. I didn't look at Talleys for example, which may come with the right screws.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
As far as I am concerned, any mass produced factory action is a good candidate for "blueprinting". Blueprinting to me means bringing the tolerances down to minimal level, and making dimensions, angles, tempers and polish levels all as close as possible to those called for by the original design blueprints.

That is not my Interpretation

Blueprinting as I have come to know it means a very precise set of measurements taken from the action while set up in a fixture.
That is the sum total of a Blueprint. All you do is find out what and where everything is in relation to each other.

Truing the action is the follow up step and is based on the previous "blueprint"
The truing of the action is done by machining or grinding the action back into squareness, parallelism, and concentricity. You are shooting for as tight as a tolerance as you can get preferably a Half thou on all mating or reference surfaces.

Now the term as become slang for the entire process of Blueprinting and truing.
Again I go back to where I believe the term originated from which is performance engine building. First the engine is Blueprinted (measurements) then the engine is machined and rebuilt.

I am by no means trying to be a stick in the mud.
I don't feel that polishing externally is apart of blueprinting as a whole.

Yes, kcstott, your intrepretation and explanation is very close to the way my gunsmith explained to me what he does in this process. He mentioned that setting it up in the fixture and taking the initial measurments takes more time than the corrections.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
Blueprinting as I have come to know it means a very precise set of measurements taken from the action while set up in a fixture.
That is the sum total of a Blueprint. All you do is find out what and where everything is in relation to each other.

Truing the action is the follow up step and is based on the previous "blueprint"
The truing of the action is done by machining or grinding the action back into squareness, parallelism, and concentricity. You are shooting for as tight as a tolerance as you can get preferably a Half thou on all mating or reference surfaces.

Now the term as become slang for the entire process of Blueprinting and truing.
Again I go back to where I believe the term originated from which is performance engine building. First the engine is Blueprinted (measurements) then the engine is machined and rebuilt.

I am by no means trying to be a stick in the mud.

Semantics!

Since the ENTIRE shooting world believes the term "Blueprinting" to mean the process of truing an action from start to finish, let it be. Please don't confuse the issue with techni-babble.

Well... me and Albert Canuck consider ourselves part of the "shooting world", and we weren't acquainted with the distinctions of the terms until just now.

So your scolding is semantics. I understood what he meant by using the techni-babble term "stick in the mud".

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Well... me and Albert Canuck consider ourselves part of the "shooting world", and we weren't acquainted with the distinctions of the terms until just now.
KB

The distinctions of what terms were you and AC not acquainted with until just now? I'm pretty sure that AC is up to speed on gun related terminology.

quote:

Originally posted by Westpac:
I'm pretty sure that AC is up to speed on gun related terminology.

Terminology and technically correct may be two different things. Talking about original design specs and the ability to achieve them are probably different comparing and discussing a mass produced action and a custom action made from scratch. The latter is far more likely to match original design specs (blueprint) out of the box than a mass produced action trued.

I suppose the operative words "as close as possible" kinda covers or reconciles it.

You may be right about "semantics", but my point is that I think it's not reasonable to expect truing to actually achieve "Blueprint" specs in a mass produced action. It could happen, but just as likely not, yet the action can still be true, and not blueprint specs.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
As far as I am concerned, any mass produced factory action is a good candidate for "blueprinting". Blueprinting to me means bringing the tolerances down to minimal level, and making dimensions, angles, tempers and polish levels all as close as possible to those called for by the original design blueprints.

quote:

Give examples of bases to look for please. I thought the Warne were quality, especially since the use of the 8x40 screws is required. The Leupold bases I bought were expensive, so I presume that equals quality. I could go back to them and just let it hang over the port a little.

Nothing wrong with Warne in my book.

the picatinny rail is likely better machined and true to itself, without potential of being out of alignment with the other base

you are going to blueprint it, using a 1 piece picatinny is likely to be more concentric with screw holes.. or, more accurate to say, less likely to be critically affected by by the action holes, if even slightly out of alignment.

so, if you look at what the military snipers are using, which aint 2 piece bases, then why bother truing it if you are going to pass on an easy bet to have a scope mounting system that is going to have a higher chance of being more accurate....

your gun, and money.. my opinion aint worth squat in that situation... though you are normally the guy that is concerned about every every every detail being right, and this is inconsistent for your past behavoir

Well, I sure like this one:

http://www.midwayusa.com/produ...0-short-action-matte

So, my question is about the 15 MOA elevation. What does that do at normal hunting ranges? Do normal scopes have enough adj to take the 15 MOA out for normal 100-200 yd zero?

KB

I've owned 4 model 700's: three in triple deuce and one in 308. All were sporter weight ADL's and all shot half MOA or better from the bench with my best handloads (One of the triple deuces could compete well in bench rest competition). I am a mauser nut (for perhaps very irrational reasons), but my regard for model 700's is very high. I strongly believe that a good bedding and trigger job is all most 700's need to shoot better than most shooters can make them shoot.

quote:

Originally posted
I don't feel that polishing externally is apart of blueprinting as a whole.

I was not referring to external polishing.

I was referring to the level of finish on caming surfaces, etc., for functioning purposes.

of the

I believe those FN Special Mod 70 actions were made in SC correct? Before they moved the whole thing to SC? Or maybe they were just finished there.

Also, they misspelled Fredericksburg. You may have wanted to leave it, it might be like those upside down plane stamps...or maybe not...

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
Also, they misspelled Fredericksburg. You may have wanted to leave it, it might be like those upside down plane stamps...or maybe not...

Too late. It's gone. I'm not interested in collector value or nostalga with this rifle.

It's a shooter. Maybe whoever inherits it can consider it nostalgic.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
the picatinny rail is likely better machined and true to itself, without potential of being out of alignment with the other base

Jeffe, I took your advice and ordered the Leupold tactical one-piece picatinny base today. I'll order a set of tactical rings later.

http://www.midwayusa.com/produ...0-short-action-matte

KB

More pictures:

Before truing:





The setup:








.0006 to completely clean up the face.
.0015 to clean up the threads
.0005 to clean up the lug seats:



Dialing in the barrel:




Barrel Tenon: