Revolver leading
- Thread starter Brad
- Start date
Here is a before and after of the forcing cone. I lapped with 240 grit for a few seconds, cleaned it up, then a few more seconds with 320 grit.
It isn't perfect by any stretch but is certainly much better. Look at the difference in the beginning of the lands. Instead of being uneven and ragged it is nice and straight and even.
You can see a pattern left, I believe, by tool chatter when the cone was initially cut. I did not remove the chatter marks but they should not be an issue. This does show the low level of care used when the cone was cut. No wonder it was rough as hell.
It isn't perfect by any stretch but is certainly much better. Look at the difference in the beginning of the lands. Instead of being uneven and ragged it is nice and straight and even.
You can see a pattern left, I believe, by tool chatter when the cone was initially cut. I did not remove the chatter marks but they should not be an issue. This does show the low level of care used when the cone was cut. No wonder it was rough as hell.
Last edited:
Yes!
Craftsmanship is lost these days.
smokeywolf
Well-Known Member
In the better machine shops, finishes like that seen in the first pic, assures that the machinist who produced it would not enjoy a long career in that shop.
gman
Well-Known Member
Doesn't S&W use a chemical process for their handgun barrels? I've heard this and the comments about it are not to good. I know Ruger has had problems with the larger bore barrels. Specifically the 480. The run of Bisleys from Lipseys has had many returned. I would like to look at mine with a bore scope to see what it looks like. Then again.......maybe not.
No bushing. I decided that on this short of a barrel it wasn't really needed. I do use a cone on the muzzle to keep that end centered.
I think it was pretty centered before, I just think the tool tore the end of the rifling and left a jagged edge. The lapping smoothed that out which makes it look so much more centered.
I don't know if just firing jacketed loads would have smoothed those jagged edges. Most likely I would have had copper fouling from hell to deal with.
I do think some jacketed loads will smooth out some roughness in the bore.
I think it was pretty centered before, I just think the tool tore the end of the rifling and left a jagged edge. The lapping smoothed that out which makes it look so much more centered.
I don't know if just firing jacketed loads would have smoothed those jagged edges. Most likely I would have had copper fouling from hell to deal with.
I do think some jacketed loads will smooth out some roughness in the bore.
RBHarter
West Central AR
There was a time when they were making that many and maintaining a level of Quality . There's some 12,000 + between Ms April and Ms September 1918 and both while probably having had some work done are really nice . I don't have any guess how many M10s were run in 1947 but the untouched example my Grandfather had was nothing like that pictured .
Mass produced 1 at a time by hand , the more steps get relieved to greater tolerance and the less hands on there is the lower the fit and finish quality slides unless the process and final QC people are at risk of a complete loathing .
Pistolero
Well-Known Member
A key point of quality control is that you can't "inspect in" quality, it has to be put into the
product by each employee, at each step of the manufacturing process, and each person working
on a product needs to be his own inspector - only passing on the product from his work station
when it is right. A lot of modern companies are working hard to get back to this truism, but many
aren't there, and many others see little market advantage to the extra effort. Poorly trained
employees and improper, improperly used, or worn tools also are a major part of this sort of failing.
One of the realities is that very few pistol owners can shoot well enough to tell the difference between a
really accurate pistol and a mediocre one, and 98% or more will only shoot jacketed ammo. Both do
not mitigate towards there being much market advantage by spending extra time and money to get
a finely finished forcing cone and a smooth, polished bore which provide most of their benefit for a
cast bullet shooter with actual handgun shooting skills.
Bill
product by each employee, at each step of the manufacturing process, and each person working
on a product needs to be his own inspector - only passing on the product from his work station
when it is right. A lot of modern companies are working hard to get back to this truism, but many
aren't there, and many others see little market advantage to the extra effort. Poorly trained
employees and improper, improperly used, or worn tools also are a major part of this sort of failing.
One of the realities is that very few pistol owners can shoot well enough to tell the difference between a
really accurate pistol and a mediocre one, and 98% or more will only shoot jacketed ammo. Both do
not mitigate towards there being much market advantage by spending extra time and money to get
a finely finished forcing cone and a smooth, polished bore which provide most of their benefit for a
cast bullet shooter with actual handgun shooting skills.
Bill
Ian
Notorious member
I guess we the consumer are partly to blame. That 2% who will bitch and send the revolver back to be done right are factored in by the bean counters. The rest of the consumers can't tell the difference in appearance OR shooting, they just dote on the magical, legendary brand name they're paying for and feel good about the purchase. The magical, legendary company has come to depend on that. Want a good one? Oh, we have a "Performance Center" if you want something made even close to right, at the price point that that level of quality costs nowdays. The standard feedstock is priced to sell and keep the company going.
Yes Ian, we are part to blame. Most guns are purchased by people who, like Bill said, will shoot strictly factory ammo and have little requirement for accuracy.
We, as casters, tend to be a finicky, picky bunch. We want things to be just so. guns today aren't made for us, they are made for Joe BangBang.
I just loaded 100 rounds with a 140 XTP, had some rejects on hand, and 4.5 gr of HP38. Should remove little burrs and smooth some rough spots.
We, as casters, tend to be a finicky, picky bunch. We want things to be just so. guns today aren't made for us, they are made for Joe BangBang.
I just loaded 100 rounds with a 140 XTP, had some rejects on hand, and 4.5 gr of HP38. Should remove little burrs and smooth some rough spots.
pokute
Active Member
When a bore looks that stinky, I will make a lap out of a wet patch (per Harry Pope, but I can't recall where I found it mentioned), and run some Simichrome for 50-200 strokes. Just taking the highest peaks off seems to be all that is actually needed. Fire lapping may produce a nice looking result, but it seems to tempt a lot of folks to go too far... Sure, the gun will shoot better, but it could be made to shoot that well with a more controlled method.
Colt used a spherical (carbide?) ball to burnish Python barrels - It would be interesting to know how much driving force they considered optimal. Burnishing is the best solution because it leaves the bore surface in compression. It's also certainly the hardest to do right!
Just did. A .347 pin won't go at all at muzzle. A .346 drops down the bore until the beginning of the frame where it stops cold.
A little thread choke is there but that isn't where it leads at all.
The thread choke won't be dealt with as it doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm a don't fix what ain't broke kind of guy. Usually...
A little thread choke is there but that isn't where it leads at all.
The thread choke won't be dealt with as it doesn't seem to be an issue. I'm a don't fix what ain't broke kind of guy. Usually...