R
rcw3
Guest
4Mesh
I am not sure where those "above statements" are made, but if the reference is to one of my postings, the re-pharasal of it is a bit different than what I said (and I am not suggesting anyone has tried to "spin" things or do anything wrong or improper).
The whole issue of who is qualified to design and refine a reamer could occupy a thread itself for sure, but here are some thoughts:
1. Something more is needed than just a shooter, and the fact that one shoots (and may win or place well) does not dicate whether that person is able to properly design a decent match chamber reamer, or refine it. The person may just be a great shooter and that's not a bad thing in any sense.
2. The person designing and refining a chamber design, to do it right, ideally needs to have, or have access to (or both) the requisite knowledge and experience on those items.
3. The field testing of designs and refinements is essential. The reamer designer needs to do this himself or have access to the information relating to this, or both.
4. Dave Kiff at Pacific Tool, Carey at JGS, and Hugh Henricksen do not necessarily have the "hands on" first hand knowledge of having shot a particular chamber reamer design, but by reason of the customers and shooters they service and work with, they clearly can have access to key information and customer feedback on the relevant issues.
As to the reamer drawing I posted for the BRX, I originally only posted it to illustrate the point on that what you do with your free bore length also depends on what you have the free bore attached to (i.e. the chamber body). It is also up to people whether they want to make use of it or not, as I have no vested interest in it other than I worked with JGS and Dave Kiff (mostly with Dave) to have a design set forward that represents the "standard in the industry" (to the extent there is one) for a true accurate bolt gun "no neck turn" match chamber BRX, throated for the 105-108 gr bullets. Heck, the reamer makers will make whatever customers want, so if people don't like it and want something else, they can get the makers to make whatever they want as well.
In the case of the BRX, there has already been a lot of bench rest and other shooting of the cartridge, and there is also very good existing feed back on it and Dave Kiff has been privy to a lot of that. The drawing I posted represents that, along with my input, shooting, field testing, verification, research and experience with it as well. If that's not what someone likes, wants or can accept, then thats' fine too.
Robert Whitley
Last edited by a moderator:
4
4Mesh
Guest
Reamer makers pretty much just make reamers, and they make whatever the customer asks for. When given a print, they probably question things they think are an issue only because they have dealt with a gazillion customers who do not know what they want. For me, I don't often do that unless something is seriously amiss. The guys here at work spent the entire day today making items which we have no idea what they are for. This isn't uncommon in manufacturing/machining/toolmaking. A print says do xyz, you do xyz, period. I'm paid, march or fight. I don't care if it works or not, as long as it is exactly what they asked for. If it's wrong, that's their issue. It isn't often. Same goes with reamer makers. They don't have to know if a reamer will work to hit the dimensions given. They grind what it says on the print and move on. They'd probably be calling the customer about the print posted above that has the errant dimensions though. Like was said above, that one would be tough to grind.
IMO, if standardization needs done on any cartridge, and the cartridge is worth standardizing, it will be done so by major manufacturers. Many currently available rounds began that way. You can now buy off the shelf 6BR's, 6.5x284's, and so on. To me, the LESS specialized, the better.
I stand by the statement that you should shoot in competition with this round to see how it performs. Not on a test bench, but, shoot where your turn to shoot is NOW. Not 5 min from now, not 1/2 an hour from now. Now. Commence fire. Lets see what'cha got. Does it work now, Y/N? That's the true test. Yes, other shooters can give that info to you, but odds are, even if they are "cooperating" with you, they won't tell you the little things they've done to iron out minor issues. (I have some experience there too). You may think they did but odds are they didn't.
As for a perfect reamer... Charles and Greg already gave all that's needed. Make a reamer that fits dies, and get it with NO throat and use a throater. Now you have options and can try many different throats / bullets without additional cost. Just start short and go long. Then re-chamber.
As for my credentials (since they seem important here), I have none. I have never used a chamber reamer in my life. (I have seen them though).
In my opinion, you are correct. And in fact, I'd go so far as to say that shooter skills are basically meaningless. You either have a good gun or you don't. If the gun is good enough, it will win regardless of who you park behind it. In my experience, people who shot my guns when they were shooting well, became remarkably better shooters that day.
No information is as good as first hand information. No information is as complete. In my experience, subtle changes to a chamber design can be made for years before deciding upon a place you're happy. And being "happy" with it does not mean it's complete usually, it just means the person got it somewhere close to the intended function, and was sick of changes so they left well enough alone. Btdt. For a few years, I re-chambered my guns for almost every match of the year, sometimes from Saturday night till Sunday morning. I've tried a lot of different stuff. If I'd been waiting for reamers to be ground, I'd have given up long before, or I"d still have about 30 iterations to go through yet. I don't consider myself an authority on chamber design. I simply know how I like mine and know what pitfalls to avoid on any new ones. I don't make guns for other people so it doesnt matter if my stuff works or not. If I were to do that, I'd make more modifications for sure. My current rifles won't be shooting another match with the current chambers, cause I have new ideas that I think could help them be better. Where does it end? Furthermore, "better", in my context, means that it works for the way I do my reloading and shooting. Not for someone else's methods/tools.
IMO, if standardization needs done on any cartridge, and the cartridge is worth standardizing, it will be done so by major manufacturers. Many currently available rounds began that way. You can now buy off the shelf 6BR's, 6.5x284's, and so on. To me, the LESS specialized, the better.
I stand by the statement that you should shoot in competition with this round to see how it performs. Not on a test bench, but, shoot where your turn to shoot is NOW. Not 5 min from now, not 1/2 an hour from now. Now. Commence fire. Lets see what'cha got. Does it work now, Y/N? That's the true test. Yes, other shooters can give that info to you, but odds are, even if they are "cooperating" with you, they won't tell you the little things they've done to iron out minor issues. (I have some experience there too). You may think they did but odds are they didn't.
As for a perfect reamer... Charles and Greg already gave all that's needed. Make a reamer that fits dies, and get it with NO throat and use a throater. Now you have options and can try many different throats / bullets without additional cost. Just start short and go long. Then re-chamber.
As for my credentials (since they seem important here), I have none. I have never used a chamber reamer in my life. (I have seen them though).
R
rcw3
Guest
4 Mesh
Agreed that the true test of things is whether they work or not.
I would also not go so far as you do in your statement, and my experiences over the years in projects with shooters (and particularly the top shooters) is that they are open and honest. It's not that they necessarily have "hidden secrets", it's just there are so many details that go into their high level of performance, compounded by the fact that they are typically constantly tinkering with things, that it's hard to have everything easily laid out and described, and some of the things they do are done by them naturally or instinctively without them necessarily even thinking about it, or realizing that certain details are noteworthy of mention.
Example: I know John Hoover and Jerry Tierney. They are both open and honest, and I would never presume to suggest they are "holding out" some secret information on me or anyone else for that matter. I have John's 6.5 x 284 reamer design and a Henricksen reamer representing exactly that (great reamer design and John does well with it - no particularly tight body - set up for .003"+ neck clearance). Jerry uses one of my 284 Win. reamer designs with the same type set up and we have periodically discussed different chambers and reamers over the years, and his results with them. The reamers don't make them the great shooters they are, it's a factor in the total picture, but definitely not the sole determining and deciding factor in their performances. It's their hard work and attention to detail on all levels that makes them great shooters and able to deliver top performances.
It's funny because Jerry recently sent me info on a 1000 yard win he had at a bench rest match shooting a rifle (I think one of his Palma rifles) chambered with the Pacific Tool Palma Team reamer I recently wrote up for Precision Shooting. I have that reamer too - loose body - no neck turn neck with lot's of neck clearance - now on this forum people would laugh at that as a bench rest design (and the same for the original BRX chamber made by running a 6BR reamer in too deep if that's how it went down) - but they worked!
Sometimes I think it's easy to get so focused on the minute details that it's easy to lose sight of the whole picture.
Robert Whitley
Last edited by a moderator:
rcw3
I'll allow I've not read every post in this thread, so I may be repeating something already said. You need to know that when Phil (4mesh) says he's never used a chamber reamer, he is being picky. That's because he cuts his chambers with a boring bar. Should he ever cut one for you from a print (I know, this won't happen), it will be the first chamber you ever had that matched the print -- well, at least down to the .001 region. I'm not sure if Phil works in a temperature controlled environment that will let him get down to .0001. Anybody who says they can doesn't work with metal and heat. I'm not talking "runout" or "variance" here, I'm talking actual dimensions, and not the dimensions of the tool, but the chamber itself
* * *
I've shot against some of the people you mention. I didn't find them as forthcoming as you seem to. Don't blame them, either. I sure don't tell people I have to compete against everything I know. Some things we only talk about in generalities, on "how to" I remain quiet. My credo is "don't mislead." That's honest enough.
Finally, on this forum anyway, we measure accuracy by competitive results. There are other ways. They are less interesting, though they may get you some ink in Precision Shooting
I'll allow I've not read every post in this thread, so I may be repeating something already said. You need to know that when Phil (4mesh) says he's never used a chamber reamer, he is being picky. That's because he cuts his chambers with a boring bar. Should he ever cut one for you from a print (I know, this won't happen), it will be the first chamber you ever had that matched the print -- well, at least down to the .001 region. I'm not sure if Phil works in a temperature controlled environment that will let him get down to .0001. Anybody who says they can doesn't work with metal and heat. I'm not talking "runout" or "variance" here, I'm talking actual dimensions, and not the dimensions of the tool, but the chamber itself
* * *
I've shot against some of the people you mention. I didn't find them as forthcoming as you seem to. Don't blame them, either. I sure don't tell people I have to compete against everything I know. Some things we only talk about in generalities, on "how to" I remain quiet. My credo is "don't mislead." That's honest enough.
Finally, on this forum anyway, we measure accuracy by competitive results. There are other ways. They are less interesting, though they may get you some ink in Precision Shooting
Last edited:
I was there when Jerry shot the 308 well as he always does and I should have posted those results in the match forum below.
In an earlier post you said you were an authority on the 6.5x284 so maybe you can tell us the differences between your 6.5x284 reamer and the design you got from John Hoover?
1. How about posting your BRX reamer drawing so we can see its dimensions and why you feel that is the "best"?
I don't think mine is the best I think if you plunge a 6BR reamer in 0.100 deep the specs I listed work as well as any posted here.
2. How about offering some facts with explanations why the dimensions of the BRX reamer drawing I posted are not appropriate for bench rest shooting and why yours are?
I like the longer neck like the 6BR has so in my opinion your neck is too short.I realise you are using 6BR brass but I use whatever it takes.With your freebore at 0.120 I would not use the 108 grain bullets unless you are limiting yourself to the 108 Berger? Many benchrest shooters like to udse the 108 Eubers and your freebore in my opinion is too short because it puts the bearing surface/boattail junction past the neck/shoulder junction.
3. Why is a .470" diameter .200" forward of the bolt face not appropriate?
If it fits your die and it doesn't click it will work.I can't find anything in any of my posts saying it is not appropriate.Did I post such a statement?
4. Why is .460" as a shoulder diameter for the BRX not appropriate?
Again if this is whart you end up with using your chosen body taper and it fits your die it will work.Can you list ther post # were I said it was innappropriate?
5. Why is the body length of 1.171" for a BRX not appropriate?
Again please post were I said it was not appropriate.
6. Why is the minimum of head space datum of 1.283" (at .330" in diameter) not correct or appropriate?
If the dimensions fit your dies use them.Again please point out my post were I said these dimensions were inappropriate.
7. Why is .272" not an appropriate neck diameter (Rodney's reamer has that as well)?
The 272 neck diameter is only appropriate if your necks are 100% unform for there entire length and this gives you the desired clearance you are after.If you use the new Blue Box Lapua 6BR brass your neck clearance will be significantly looser than if your using older lots of brass.With a turned neck you get exactly the thickness you want and 100% uniformity with any lot of brass.Consistancy is important in benchrest shooting.
8. Why is a chamber max of 1.560" (with a plus tolerance of .005") not appropriate?
It doesn't allow for the long neck of the original 6BRX.
9. Why is .2432" (with a plus tolerance of .0004") not proper for a free bore diameter?
Did I say it was not appropriate?
10. Why is a .120" free bore not appropriate for 105-108 gr bullets?
Because if one is using the 108 Eubers which have shot many small group awards they would be seated too deeply into the case.
You still haven't answered any of my questions-WHY?
Lynn aka Waterboy
In an earlier post you said you were an authority on the 6.5x284 so maybe you can tell us the differences between your 6.5x284 reamer and the design you got from John Hoover?
1. How about posting your BRX reamer drawing so we can see its dimensions and why you feel that is the "best"?
I don't think mine is the best I think if you plunge a 6BR reamer in 0.100 deep the specs I listed work as well as any posted here.
2. How about offering some facts with explanations why the dimensions of the BRX reamer drawing I posted are not appropriate for bench rest shooting and why yours are?
I like the longer neck like the 6BR has so in my opinion your neck is too short.I realise you are using 6BR brass but I use whatever it takes.With your freebore at 0.120 I would not use the 108 grain bullets unless you are limiting yourself to the 108 Berger? Many benchrest shooters like to udse the 108 Eubers and your freebore in my opinion is too short because it puts the bearing surface/boattail junction past the neck/shoulder junction.
3. Why is a .470" diameter .200" forward of the bolt face not appropriate?
If it fits your die and it doesn't click it will work.I can't find anything in any of my posts saying it is not appropriate.Did I post such a statement?
4. Why is .460" as a shoulder diameter for the BRX not appropriate?
Again if this is whart you end up with using your chosen body taper and it fits your die it will work.Can you list ther post # were I said it was innappropriate?
5. Why is the body length of 1.171" for a BRX not appropriate?
Again please post were I said it was not appropriate.
6. Why is the minimum of head space datum of 1.283" (at .330" in diameter) not correct or appropriate?
If the dimensions fit your dies use them.Again please point out my post were I said these dimensions were inappropriate.
7. Why is .272" not an appropriate neck diameter (Rodney's reamer has that as well)?
The 272 neck diameter is only appropriate if your necks are 100% unform for there entire length and this gives you the desired clearance you are after.If you use the new Blue Box Lapua 6BR brass your neck clearance will be significantly looser than if your using older lots of brass.With a turned neck you get exactly the thickness you want and 100% uniformity with any lot of brass.Consistancy is important in benchrest shooting.
8. Why is a chamber max of 1.560" (with a plus tolerance of .005") not appropriate?
It doesn't allow for the long neck of the original 6BRX.
9. Why is .2432" (with a plus tolerance of .0004") not proper for a free bore diameter?
Did I say it was not appropriate?
10. Why is a .120" free bore not appropriate for 105-108 gr bullets?
Because if one is using the 108 Eubers which have shot many small group awards they would be seated too deeply into the case.
You still haven't answered any of my questions-WHY?
Lynn aka Waterboy
Truth is elusive, sometimes illusive and almost ALWAYS allusive........... but to whom?
Depends on where you're standing
"Give me a big enough inkstick and I'll move the world"
But hey, I digress........
Lynn and rcw3, here's a question I've asked BOTH of you and NEITHER has answered!
Have you (both) been able to achieve the same velocities from large primer brass as from small primer brass all other factors being equal??? You've both ALLUDED to the answer "yes" but you've both ELUDED my attempts at a clear "yes" or "no" answer......
To each of ye'
either, YES "I believe that large primer brass is just as stout as small primer brass"
or "no."
"crow not y' yllusive bantam, lest ye be cockolded aforetime!"
(I think I'm fresh out of 'lusions!)
al
Depends on where you're standing
"Give me a big enough inkstick and I'll move the world"
But hey, I digress........
Lynn and rcw3, here's a question I've asked BOTH of you and NEITHER has answered!
Have you (both) been able to achieve the same velocities from large primer brass as from small primer brass all other factors being equal??? You've both ALLUDED to the answer "yes" but you've both ELUDED my attempts at a clear "yes" or "no" answer......
To each of ye'
either, YES "I believe that large primer brass is just as stout as small primer brass"
or "no."
"crow not y' yllusive bantam, lest ye be cockolded aforetime!"
(I think I'm fresh out of 'lusions!)
al
Alinwa
The 6BR in my opinion shoots best when shot as hard as one can push it.The 6BRX I have shoots best below its maximum pressure point so the brass chosen is not a problem.
On a case like the 300 Ackley there is a node you can't reach with Norma brass so you are forced to shoot at the lower node.I have 375 brass without the flasholes and the small flashole doesn't fix the problem.Soft brass is soft brass and it never work hardens before the primer pockets give up even with small flashholes in my experience.
Lynn aka Waterboy
The 6BR in my opinion shoots best when shot as hard as one can push it.The 6BRX I have shoots best below its maximum pressure point so the brass chosen is not a problem.
On a case like the 300 Ackley there is a node you can't reach with Norma brass so you are forced to shoot at the lower node.I have 375 brass without the flasholes and the small flashole doesn't fix the problem.Soft brass is soft brass and it never work hardens before the primer pockets give up even with small flashholes in my experience.
Lynn aka Waterboy
R
rcw3
Guest
Lynn
I believe my posting reads different than that, and I did not proclaim myself that way. In any case, I have a number of 6.5 x 284 reamer designs ("neck turn" and "no neck turn"), and numerous reamers, so I am not sure how to address your question. One key difference is that John's design keeps the standard .125" radius at the junction of the neck and shoulder of the case, but I wanted a design to use the commercially available Redding dies that have only a broken corner in that location and would over work things very hard there without some relief, so that's what you will see there. The relief also varies there depending on whether it's a "neck turn" reamer or a "no neck turn" reamer, especially if Lapua brass is expected to be used (since the shoulder metal of the Lapua brass is thicker than the neck metal). John was not really working with those issues.
In any case, looking at the postings, it seems we have both overstayed our welcome on this thread and I am permanently signing off.
My apologies to those (including you) who have found my postings to be tedious or not to their liking.
Robert Whitley
Last edited by a moderator:
Robert
Don't get your panties in a wad and go away mad.
My only problem (Your words not mine) is your claim that YOUR DESIGN is the standard of the industry.In looking over your considerable posts here I simpl don't see YOUR DESIGN.The reamer print you have posted is all pretty standard stuff but in reading through the posts it appears to my pee brain to be a compilation of other peoples advice to you and there is nothing wring with that rather than YOUR DESIGN.
I think standardising is good for both the cartridge and my fellow shooters I just took acception to your claim of YOUR DESIGN being the standard by which all others are judged in its short 2 month history
I am still puzzled however why you never answered any of my questions?
Waterboy
Don't get your panties in a wad and go away mad.
My only problem (Your words not mine) is your claim that YOUR DESIGN is the standard of the industry.In looking over your considerable posts here I simpl don't see YOUR DESIGN.The reamer print you have posted is all pretty standard stuff but in reading through the posts it appears to my pee brain to be a compilation of other peoples advice to you and there is nothing wring with that rather than YOUR DESIGN.
I think standardising is good for both the cartridge and my fellow shooters I just took acception to your claim of YOUR DESIGN being the standard by which all others are judged in its short 2 month history
I am still puzzled however why you never answered any of my questions?
Waterboy
4
4Mesh
Guest
Loose dimensions on a case don't bother me a bit as long as the dies make the brass work in the gun again.
No turn necks __IMO__ are wonderful, (as long as you turn the necks)
The Redding dies you mention with the broken corner are probably intended for use on the brass with the larger radius. That's normal in form dies. Die making is a science all in itself. If you are thinking that a die is a gizmo that is shaped with dimensions xyz and you jam a part in it and it comes out the inverse of xyz, that is incorrect. For my guns, I had multiple sets of dies for my brass and chose them depending upon what state the brass was in, what age, and how that brass had been prepared before sizing. Even the level of dirt on the outside of a case can make a measurable difference in the dimensions after sizing, especially in the radii. Anneal the brass and it will definitely be different dimensions. Whether or not that matters depends upon how much the case is under the chamber dims and where. If you're trying to make a chamber that will seal with NO neck on it, then the tolerances have to be a good bit closer. (That's for folks who hate tedious reloading work)
It's pretty easy to make a die that isn't right. I've made more than a few. I can honestly say I wish I had less experience in re-loading die making cause I've wasted a lot of time and money doing it. Ive lost count of the number of people who use dies I made for myself and then stopped using / gave away cause I made new ones. Never look back...
No turn necks __IMO__ are wonderful, (as long as you turn the necks)
The Redding dies you mention with the broken corner are probably intended for use on the brass with the larger radius. That's normal in form dies. Die making is a science all in itself. If you are thinking that a die is a gizmo that is shaped with dimensions xyz and you jam a part in it and it comes out the inverse of xyz, that is incorrect. For my guns, I had multiple sets of dies for my brass and chose them depending upon what state the brass was in, what age, and how that brass had been prepared before sizing. Even the level of dirt on the outside of a case can make a measurable difference in the dimensions after sizing, especially in the radii. Anneal the brass and it will definitely be different dimensions. Whether or not that matters depends upon how much the case is under the chamber dims and where. If you're trying to make a chamber that will seal with NO neck on it, then the tolerances have to be a good bit closer. (That's for folks who hate tedious reloading work)
It's pretty easy to make a die that isn't right. I've made more than a few. I can honestly say I wish I had less experience in re-loading die making cause I've wasted a lot of time and money doing it. Ive lost count of the number of people who use dies I made for myself and then stopped using / gave away cause I made new ones. Never look back...
G
Greg Culpepper
Guest
I use my rifle as the gauge for case fit. I try to keep fit very, very close but just free from perceptable bolt drag (after the first shot with a crush fit). I find I can massage cases that don't meet that bolt drop standard with the first sizing by applying more (and more) sizing lube and resizing until I just get what I want without moving the lock ring on the die. When you size this close and don't use that ammo very soon you will learn that storage can allow your cases to relax a little over time and grow from their just sized dimension.
As long as we're off on real small things, the kind of lube you use is also a factor. I once did a test using Imperial Die Wax against RCBS Water Solubable Case Lube. Same die settings gave different results. If you're trying to size to .001 or less after springback, don't change lube unless you want to reset your die.
Does such accuracy in FL sizing matter? I dunno. But if it plays with your head, it matters.
BTW, the RCBS was the "better" lube. Also easier to clean off.
Does such accuracy in FL sizing matter? I dunno. But if it plays with your head, it matters.
BTW, the RCBS was the "better" lube. Also easier to clean off.
Small things?
Does accuracy in FL sizing matter??
This one is remarkable easy to test, just shoot loose VS tight cases head to head.
With a good gun.
al
4
4Mesh
Guest
I was going to post the same findings with Imperial wax Charles. And Yes, I like the RCBS lube better than the wax, or some other brands of water soluble. Seems the viscosity of others doesn't lend itself well to sizing anything but perfectly clean cases.
As for another lube, ask around at your next match and see if one of the guys there doesn't have some of the stuff I just gave the crew that came up to PA. I found a lube that's also water soluble, won't burn, (annealing) won't corrode brass, etc. It's not available over the counter and only comes in drums, it's pretty nice stuff.
{edit}
Al, He did say "Such levels of accuracy". There is a point at which dimensional accuracy is less important. It's where the tolerance on good performance is larger. I could say that I've spent more time on achieving just that than any other single item in shooting. Perhaps, as much time as all other things in shooting combined, or pretty close. In my guns, loose cases work as good as tight, cracked necks as good as good ones (sometimes better), cracked shoulders seal as good as new ones. And , as a rule, my ammo works pretty darn nice in guns it was never loaded for. Unfortunately, since my chambers are a tick tighter than stock, my brass won't work in my guns after it's shot in someone elses. It has to be run back through a punch press. But that's another story.
I think what rcw3 is trying to do is make a cartridge that requires less work. I just think he's going about it by doing too much customization and change from the currently common dimensions. And will ultimately end up with a case that's easier to prep brass for, at the expense of much more expensive tools and shorter case life. Jmho. No turn necks generally crack very early in life, and for someone like me who likes to get a lot of firings from brass, that's not so good. Well, not if a cracked neck doesn't shoot as good as a new one anyhow. For others who don't care about such things, it's fine. To each his own.
As for another lube, ask around at your next match and see if one of the guys there doesn't have some of the stuff I just gave the crew that came up to PA. I found a lube that's also water soluble, won't burn, (annealing) won't corrode brass, etc. It's not available over the counter and only comes in drums, it's pretty nice stuff.
{edit}
Al, He did say "Such levels of accuracy". There is a point at which dimensional accuracy is less important. It's where the tolerance on good performance is larger. I could say that I've spent more time on achieving just that than any other single item in shooting. Perhaps, as much time as all other things in shooting combined, or pretty close. In my guns, loose cases work as good as tight, cracked necks as good as good ones (sometimes better), cracked shoulders seal as good as new ones. And , as a rule, my ammo works pretty darn nice in guns it was never loaded for. Unfortunately, since my chambers are a tick tighter than stock, my brass won't work in my guns after it's shot in someone elses. It has to be run back through a punch press. But that's another story.
I think what rcw3 is trying to do is make a cartridge that requires less work. I just think he's going about it by doing too much customization and change from the currently common dimensions. And will ultimately end up with a case that's easier to prep brass for, at the expense of much more expensive tools and shorter case life. Jmho. No turn necks generally crack very early in life, and for someone like me who likes to get a lot of firings from brass, that's not so good. Well, not if a cracked neck doesn't shoot as good as a new one anyhow. For others who don't care about such things, it's fine. To each his own.
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil,
Couple of thing in there I haven't found for myself....
#1, I've not found any guns which shoot to their potential with loose brass and #2 I've never had any issues with cracking no-turn necks. I've found them to last just as long as turned ones. Like 50rds plus. In fact, I've never cracked an unannealed neck in a custom chamber.
Funny how often experiences differ.
al
Couple of thing in there I haven't found for myself....
#1, I've not found any guns which shoot to their potential with loose brass and #2 I've never had any issues with cracking no-turn necks. I've found them to last just as long as turned ones. Like 50rds plus. In fact, I've never cracked an unannealed neck in a custom chamber.
Funny how often experiences differ.
al
This is one of the most important points in this overlong thread.
Not mentioned -- so I will -- is don't start cherishing beliefs based on a 5-shot group or two. Go find a statistician. Ask how many 5-shot groups you need to get reliable standard deviation data. As I remember, it takes around 70 shots, but (1) I'm not a statistician, and (2) memory is not what it once was.
One of the disservices of internet information sharing is so much of that information needs an asterisk. RCW3 alluded to this when he remarked that experienced shooters have so much "in their fingers" as opposed to "in their brains." The "I forgot to mention" s can get pretty big.
Another biggie is the belief that you always try one thing at a time. No. Sometimes you can have two things, and if they are tried separately, there will be no significant improvement with either. But if you do both, wow. Big improvement.
* * *
Everybody has personal mental images that help bring them back to reality. For a lot of years, mine was "Suppose this was a muzzleloader"? All the fuss about chamber design disappears. We're back to bullets and barrels. AFAIK, it was the bullet portion that killed off muzzleloaders -- can't load a jacketed bullet from the front end, even with a false muzzle. Before jacketed bullets, no breachloader could shoot with a muzzleloader that used paper-patched bullets started with a false muzzle. Talk about bullets being centered in the bore!
(edited to fix [some] typos)
Last edited:
4
4Mesh
Guest
Unfired brass is usually very loose. Have you never owned a gun that really shot it's best with brand new brass? I've seen guys shooting at 1K win season aggs shooting new brass every match.
In my experience Al, if a neck wasn't turned, it is ever so slightly uneven. Let's say a 30 cal with neck brass of .0135 to .0150. The thin area will work more (stretch easier and compress in the die easier) and I find them to overwork and fall apart at that weak area. Just in my experience. I always thought of it the same as strengthening a rear end for a race car. You go in and grind all the sharp uneven areas off the casting leaving no stress points to fail. The cut casting with less material actually becomes stronger. Maybe I'm using a bad analogy there but you know what I mean.
As for not needing to anneal in a custom chamber, I could belive that. My chambers are a bit loose in the neck areas so my brass tends to work more than most peoples. A .332 loaded round comes out of the gun at .346 or so. So, if I don't anneal, I'll get very few firings before they crack. Probably 10 or less.
Yea, the experiences differ a lot, but probably so do the guns we shoot.
Boyd Allen
Active member
I believe that we have a terminology issue. In the common usage on a board such as this, the term "no turn neck" refers to a custom chamber with a neck diameter that does not require turning. In this situation, the clearance between the neck of the loaded round is optimized so as to give most of the advantages of a tight neck chamber, without having to turn necks. Neck clearance is usually .003 or less. Just because a chamber is large enough so that turning is not required does not mean that it is "no turn" under the above definition.
To reduce the potential for this sort of misunderstanding, I use the terms "tight necked chamber" for chambers that require turning, and "close necked chamber" for those that do not, but have a designed in, closer than factory clearance. Realizing that these are not understood by all that may hear or read them, I try to include my definitions for both in whatever discussion that I am participating in, particularly for close necked, since it is not in common use.
To reduce the potential for this sort of misunderstanding, I use the terms "tight necked chamber" for chambers that require turning, and "close necked chamber" for those that do not, but have a designed in, closer than factory clearance. Realizing that these are not understood by all that may hear or read them, I try to include my definitions for both in whatever discussion that I am participating in, particularly for close necked, since it is not in common use.
Yes I have had guns like this....... they were broke
ALL of them. They shot OK, maybe 1/3moa @ 100yds, but never really well. One of my "tests" of whether or not a platform is sound is that it shoots properly fireformed cases better. Of course here again we differ..... I purposefully have my chambers set undersized so that my ff rounds are jammed. I never shoot loose brass. AFTER fireforming my bolt hannle drops as if it WERE loose but it ain't.opinion alert!!!
On the subject of loose brass..... I should keep my mouth shut here but I won't, again.
Loose foreform brass makes crap cases, period. Fireforming loose brass insures that even if the gun IS good it can't ever shoot well using the buggered brass.All the stuff about losing the stress risers and such I agree with I guess but I'd never use a rifle with the sort of tolerances you're talking about. Even for a hunting rifle. .003 neck clearance is excessive to me. .001 and less clearances elsewhere.
al