discussion of chamber bore alignment

[M. De Land]

One must remember that chamber bore co-axis is on and x-y plane (vertical-horrizontal) not just lateral bolt notch induced alignment.
This is why barrel cylinder gap when adjusted must be as close to the same at 3-6-9 and 12 o'clock or the chamber will be out of co-axis and some what angular with the bore.
This really comes into play when end fitting arbors, shortening lower lugs and tightening up wedge fit. One can also see how a loose arbor thread wondering around at ignition would point the muzzle randomly.
This uneven barrel cylinder gap is why I believe open frame guns often shoot high and generally off to one side or the other although I have re-barreled or set back quite a few solid frame guns that suffer the same defect. In solid frame guns it often is because the barrel hole through the frame is not square with the frame or the threads are buggered up some. I haven't come up with a good fix for solid frame guns with this problem.
Open frame guns are much easier to correct in this regard especially when in the vertical plane .
This is also why I go to the trouble to install a new front target style sight in a dovetail so as to have both windage and elevation adjustment.

 

[Tumbledown]

One must remember that chamber bore co-axis is on and x-y plane (vertical-horrizontal) not just lateral bolt notch induced alignment.
This is why barrel cylinder gap when adjusted must be as close to the same at 3-6-9 and 12 o'clock or the chamber will be out of co-axis and some what angular with the bore.
This really comes into play when end fitting arbors, shortening lower lugs and tightening up wedge fit. One can also see how a loose arbor thread wondering around at ignition would point the muzzle randomly.
This uneven barrel cylinder gap is why I believe open frame guns often shoot high and generally off to one side or the other although I have re-barreled or set back quite a few solid frame guns that suffer the same defect. In solid frame guns it often is because the barrel hole through the frame is not square with the frame or the threads are buggered up some. I haven't come up with a good fix for solid frame guns with this problem.
Open frame guns are much easier to correct in this regard especially when in the vertical plane .
This is also why I go to the trouble to install a new front target style sight in a dovetail so as to have both windage and elevation adjustment.

This is under Flintlock Rifles, but you're talking about c&b pistols...

 

[M. De Land]

This is under Flintlock Rifles, but you're talking about c&b pistols.

 

[M. De Land]

Sorry about that, I wondered where it went after hitting the post reply button. Thanks for the help as puters give give me grief at times.

 

[nkbj]

Fifty years ago had a piece with so much lateral misalignment that I dovetailed a rear sight on the rear of the barrel. It worked.

 

[M. De Land]

Fifty years ago had a piece with so much lateral misalignment that I dovetailed a rear sight on the rear of the barrel. It worked.

I've seen that done as well but what I learned to do with my 60 after installing a new brass blade up front to correct for elevation was to line up the right ear of the V notch in the hammer with the front sight which works surprisingly well because of the shape and color contrast ( angle against post - black against Brass) and using a 6 o'clock hold on target or game.
This maintains the extended sight radius the hammer notch affords as opposed to the shortening of it with both sights on the barrel.
Besides that a rear barrel sight in a dovetail cut on a open frame gun looks goofy to me and is hard on holsters .

 

[Rich44]

I've seen that done as well but what I learned to do with my 60 after installing a new brass blade up front to correct for elevation was to line up the right ear of the V notch in the hammer with the front sight which works surprisingly well because of the shape and color contrast ( angle against post - black against Brass) and using a 6 o'clock hold on target or game.
This maintains the extended sight radius the hammer notch affords as opposed to the shortening of it with both sights on the barrel.
Besides that a rear barrel sight in a dovetail cut on a open frame gun looks goofy to me and is hard on holsters .

Are you holding the pistol in your right hand? I am right handed.

About 65 years ago an older friend allowed me to shoot his 45 auto, and he stated hold on to it. That started me on a extremely bad habit of holding on to a handgun to tight for many years. And my shooting skills suffered. My shots would go low and to the left, but another shooter would shot dead on. My grip was entirely at fault. I loosened up my grip and concentrated on a straight pull back on trigger from target to me with tip of finger. I immediately felt less recoil by not holding so tight and the shots were proper height. The finger control on the trigger resulted in correcting the shots landing to left and now hitting center.

With a stock 1860 they seem to always shoot high. Need to install higher front sight or bury it in the V notch to get on target hold. I have 8" barrel and homemade 6" barrel both with the same front sight height. The 6" barrel shoots dead on because of the shorter sight radius.

Don't know if you ever turned a colt 45 single action over and set it on the sights on a table. But it rest like it would shoot very low. There is a lot of compensation for recoil. So bottom line if a right handed shooter has problems shooting left it may be better to check the grip and trigger pull first before blaming the gun.

I whole hardly agree the barrel fit for colts need to be square with the cylinder, which you have shown being corrected with the barrel mounted in the lathe for vertical on different post. Kind of at the mercy of the builder for lateral alignment as you call it. I like the 6" barrel over a higher front sight option, but the hammer notch helps with the longer sight radius.

 

[springfield art]

I often reply to something because it's right in front of me, and wind up putting it in the wrong category; I apologize across the board!

 

[M. De Land]

Are you holding the pistol in your right hand? I am right handed.

About 65 years ago an older friend allowed me to shoot his 45 auto, and he stated hold on to it. That started me on a extremely bad habit of holding on to a handgun to tight for many years. And my shooting skills suffered. My shots would go low and to the left, but another shooter would shot dead on. My grip was entirely at fault. I loosened up my grip and concentrated on a straight pull back on trigger from target to me with tip of finger. I immediately felt less recoil by not holding so tight and the shots were proper height. The finger control on the trigger resulted in correcting the shots landing to left and now hitting center.

With a stock 1860 they seem to always shoot high. Need to install higher front sight or bury it in the V notch to get on target hold. I have 8" barrel and homemade 6" barrel both with the same front sight height. The 6" barrel shoots dead on because of the shorter sight radius.

Don't know if you ever turned a colt 45 single action over and set it on the sights on a table. But it rest like it would shoot very low. There is a lot of compensation for recoil. So bottom line if a right handed shooter has problems shooting left it may be better to check the grip and trigger pull first before blaming the gun.

I whole hardly agree the barrel fit for colts need to be square with the cylinder, which you have shown being corrected with the barrel mounted in the lathe for vertical on different post. Kind of at the mercy of the builder for lateral alignment as you call it. I like the 6" barrel over a higher front sight option, but the hammer notch helps with the longer sight radius.

I'm right handed and right eye dominate so it works out as described with both eyes open. I still see pretty well without eye correction at 74 so open and aperture sights still work well for me but am noticing more hand tremor with advancing years.
I still shoot more accurately one handed then I do with two but my fingers have been so beat up with scar tissue from glass and machine tool work I don't have near the sensitivity in the tips once enjoyed.
I'm finding that I now need to have at least a pull weight of 1.5 lbs to even feel the break.
Set triggers are useless to me for anything but bench work and even then I have to really pay attention so as not to fire before I've settled in to the sight picture.
I do still build sear lifts though in hand gun or rifle to eliminate creep and get the pull weight down to 1.5-2 lbs that I can feel in the trigger finger tip.
I really do most of my match competition now days with flint or percussion rifles but will shoot the pistols in the territorial matches.
I work on the hand guns way more often than compete with them now days because they are so interesting to me.
Yes, even grip tension, positioning and repeatability/consistency are essential to accurate hand gun work from the mechanical stand point but I still feel most accuracy occurs between the ears give a reasonably accurate gun and all else being equal.
I do always test my guns out from a sand bag rest so as to prove up the accuracy potential which goes a long way in reinforcing the between the ears issue. Once they prove up for accuracy from the rest I can zero them as to grip and stance which for me generally are pretty much the same.
Heavy bullets really change things for me as to sight movement/change but once I get a good load going the adjustable sights are set and left that way pretty much from then on in hand gun use.

 

[Rich44]

When I was a young pup of 74 most everything was still steady. But 5 years later, tend also to just do machine work. Even though ear plugs/muffs were always used just cannot put up with the load noises of gunfire. Can't hear the orders from the spouse and get in trouble too much. Like a few other members, will be checking out soon anyway. A brand new body sounds great to me.

 

[M. De Land]

When I was a young pup of 74 most everything was still steady. But 5 years later, tend also to just do machine work. Even though ear plugs/muffs were always used just cannot put up with the load noises of gunfire. Can't hear the orders from the spouse and get in trouble too much. Like a few other members, will be checking out soon anyway. A brand new body sounds great to me.

Amen ,sounds like God pretty much bent both of us quite similarly but it took me a long time to figure out that this passion for machine work , glass cutting , self bow fabrication , flint knapping and all things that shoot projectiles came from him in the first place.

 

[M. De Land]

Are you holding the pistol in your right hand? I am right handed.

About 65 years ago an older friend allowed me to shoot his 45 auto, and he stated hold on to it. That started me on a extremely bad habit of holding on to a handgun to tight for many years. And my shooting skills suffered. My shots would go low and to the left, but another shooter would shot dead on. My grip was entirely at fault. I loosened up my grip and concentrated on a straight pull back on trigger from target to me with tip of finger. I immediately felt less recoil by not holding so tight and the shots were proper height. The finger control on the trigger resulted in correcting the shots landing to left and now hitting center.

With a stock 1860 they seem to always shoot high. Need to install higher front sight or bury it in the V notch to get on target hold. I have 8" barrel and homemade 6" barrel both with the same front sight height. The 6" barrel shoots dead on because of the shorter sight radius.

Don't know if you ever turned a colt 45 single action over and set it on the sights on a table. But it rest like it would shoot very low. There is a lot of compensation for recoil. So bottom line if a right handed shooter has problems shooting left it may be better to check the grip and trigger pull first before blaming the gun.

I whole hardly agree the barrel fit for colts need to be square with the cylinder, which you have shown being corrected with the barrel mounted in the lathe for vertical on different post. Kind of at the mercy of the builder for lateral alignment as you call it. I like the 6" barrel over a higher front sight option, but the hammer notch helps with the longer sight radius.

I would like to try a scope sighted open frame percussion revolver some day with a rear barrel, dovetail mounted blast shield/deflector protecting the bottom side of the scope tube at the cylinder gap and ring out all the potential accuracy possible with such a platform testing both ball and bullet. It would be at the very least quite an interesting experiment me thinks as I wonder what accuracy potential actually lies there and if it has ever been tried before. Surely it's not an original notion of inquiry !

 

[45D]

I would like to try a scope sighted open frame percussion revolver some day with a rear barrel, dovetail mounted blast shield/deflector protecting the bottom side of the scope tube at the cylinder gap and ring out all the potential accuracy possible with such a platform testing both ball and bullet. It would be at the very least quite an interesting experiment me thinks as I wonder what accuracy potential actually lies there and if it has ever been tried before. Surely it's not an original notion of inquiry !

Nope, Hovey Smith's "Super Walker" was outfitted with a red dot sight on a picatinny rail. I tuned it about 10 yrs ago.

Mike

 

[Rich44]

Nope, Hovey Smith's "Super Walker" was outfitted with a red dot sight on a picatinny rail. I tuned it about 10 yrs ago.
View attachment 269546
View attachment 269547

Mike

While not interested in a red dot on a black powder gun. My most shot handgun does have one. With my design of mount that uses the rear sight dovetail for mounting. This is by no doubt the easiest gun to make hits with that I have. The red dots are really great.

 

[M. De Land]

While not interested in a red dot on a black powder gun. My most shot handgun does have one. With my design of mount that uses the rear sight dovetail for mounting. This is by no doubt the easiest gun to make hits with that I have. The red dots are really great.

View attachment 269708

I have always been amazed at the accuracy potential from a revolver as the system does not seem congruous to rigid alignment repeatability but they just don't seem to care about my opinions for which I am very grateful, as I really love them .
Apparently the wibbles compensate for the wabbles in the system and to some degree cancel negative to accuracy influences out.
I do know that line boring of chambers greatly aids revolver accuracy which makes a great deal of sense to my reasoning but I have also test fired revolvers that were horribly misaligned that did not spit lead and were accurate beyond any logic I could think of. This is one of those (Go Figure things) that show us on occasion we are not as smart as we delude ourselves into thinking at times!
Our egos need a good punch in the face from time to time !

 

[45D]

I have always been amazed at the accuracy potential from a revolver as the system does not seem congruous to rigid alignment repeatability but they just don't seem to care about my opinions for which I am very grateful, as I really love them .
Apparently the wibbles compensate for the wabbles in the system and to some degree cancel negative to accuracy influences out.
I do know that line boring of chambers greatly aids revolver accuracy which makes a great deal of sense to my reasoning but I have also test fired revolvers that were horribly misaligned that did not spit lead and were accurate beyond any logic I could think of. This is one of those (Go Figure things) that show us on occasion we are not as smart as we delude ourselves into thinking at times!
Our egos need a good punch in the face from time to time !

That's too darn funny!!

As many times as it's been explained to you, you seem to be unable to either accept or understand that there IS no "wibbles" or "wabbles" when the open-top platform is set up correctly. The design doesn't really care what your "opinions" are if they don't align with the design. The design is gonna do what it does no matter what anybody THINKS is supposed to happen.
If I thought the suspension bridge design was no good should I expect them all to fall? Maybe a better approach would be to try and understand WHY they work ( since there's obvious proof they do!!) rather than insist that they shouldn't.

The setup of your own Walker should at least give you a clue. You apparently thought it was worth keeping it from "self destruction". It does the same for all Colt pattern open top revolvers.

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

That's too darn funny!!

As many times as it's been explained to you, you seem to be unable to either accept or understand that there IS no "wibbles" or "wabbles" when the open-top platform is set up correctly. The design doesn't really care what your "opinions" are if they don't align with the design. The design is gonna do what it does no matter what anybody THINKS is supposed to happen.
If I thought the suspension bridge design was no good should I expect them all to fall? Maybe a better approach would be to try and understand WHY they work ( since there's obvious proof they do!!) rather than insist that they shouldn't.

Mike

The wibbles compensating for wabbles was a Jack O'Connor quote when discussing off hand accuracy. I have always liked the line and used it in this case to describe open frame flex which despite your refusal to believe is a reality that plays a part in overall accuracy potential every time open frame guns shoot. The assembly tolerances between arbor and well do not magically disappear with and end fit arbor or tight wedge fit up. Even without assembly tolerance the off set from bore line pressure vector forces misalignment from steel elasticity. A heavy charge with more velocity moves it more than a weaker one.
If the movements (flex) work with each other than accuracy is possible and if they clash or collide then we get fliers and less consistent accuracy potential.
You probably have noticed that most if not all Bullseye competitions are dominated by solid frame guns. There is always the exception but in general the rigid platforms come out on top in the accuracy department.

 

[45D]

You probably have noticed that most if not all Bullseye competitions are dominated by solid frame guns. There is always the exception but in general the rigid platforms come out on top in the accuracy department.

Yap, the main reasons being 1. I don't believe anybody goes to the expense of making a much more complicated "target" barrel for the open-top platform and 2. It's much easier to do so for top strap revolvers. ( same answers for the same questions).

Mike

 

[M. De Land]

Yap, the main reasons being 1. I don't believe anybody goes to the expense of making a much more complicated "target" barrel for the open-top platform and 2. It's much easier to do so for top strap revolvers. ( same answers for the same questions).

Mike

All I have ever done as far as barrel bores on any of my guns is lap the bores level , recut the forcing cones and square the muzzles.
I do think my 60 might very well out shoot my ROA given equal quality of sights and is one of those Go figure things I mentioned earlier. It was the one I had in mind to scope sight to find out it's full accuracy potential.
I'd want to figure out some kind of clamping set up as I don't want to cut a dovetail at the breech end or drill and tap it.