Adjustable V-block? - RimfireCentral.com Forums

Go Back   RimfireCentral.com Forums > >

Notices

Join Team RFC to remove these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-22-2017, 11:09 AM
Tom_in_MO's Avatar
Tom_in_MO
US Army Veteran

Join Date: 
Apr 2016
Location: 
St. Louis, MO
Posts: 
1,554
TPC Rating: 
100% (1)
Adjustable V-block?



Log in to see fewer ads
What do you guys think of this adjustable V-block to prevent barrel droop? Great idea, gimmick, or second-rate solution? What if anything would be a better solution? This would be for the stock Ruger sporter barrel. Gonna have Randy work on the barrel and receiver, but not do the barrel-to-receiver threading; just chamber work and target crown. And his full bolt-upgrade job.

Or do you feel strongly I should get the threading? Would that remove any possibility of barrel droop? One concern I have with threading the barrel to receiver is having the front Tech Sight still line up.

Last edited by Tom_in_MO; 01-22-2017 at 11:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-22-2017, 11:22 AM
crackedcornish's Avatar
crackedcornish
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Dec 2006
Posts: 
4,139
TPC Rating: 
100% (1)
do you actually have barrel droop?

if not, don't worry about switching out the block

if you do, use the gunsmither block
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-22-2017, 11:26 AM
'ol shooter's Avatar
'ol shooter
NRA Member - Click Here To Join! GOA Member

Join Date: 
Oct 2010
Location: 
So Cal
Posts: 
8,707
TPC Rating: 
100% (124)
I have used several different blocks with screws in them, Gunsmither's design is head and shoulders above the others. I have a 10-22 with a crooked barrel hole, and with the Tech sights installed, I couldn't get it to hit point of aim, even with the rear adjusted all the way to one side. The Gunsmither block allowed me to rotate the barrel to center the front sight, and has the anti-droop screw just like some of the others.
__________________
Bob B.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #4  
Old 01-22-2017, 11:31 AM
Tom_in_MO's Avatar
Tom_in_MO
US Army Veteran

Join Date: 
Apr 2016
Location: 
St. Louis, MO
Posts: 
1,554
TPC Rating: 
100% (1)
Well, actually my gun shoots just fine with scope or Tech Sights, i.e. as far as being able to align the sights to get the bullet where I want it on paper. I only assume I have barrel droop because it is a stock gun. So not all stock 10/22s have this issue? Maybe I got lucky?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-22-2017, 11:40 AM
crackedcornish's Avatar
crackedcornish
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Dec 2006
Posts: 
4,139
TPC Rating: 
100% (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_in_MO View Post
Well, actually my gun shoots just fine with scope or Tech Sights, i.e. as far as being able to align the sights to get the bullet where I want it on paper. I only assume I have barrel droop because it is a stock gun. So not all stock 10/22s have this issue? Maybe I got lucky?
droop usually shows up when people start wantin' to hang free floatin heavy bull barrels off the front of the receiver and shooting at stuff 100 yards away
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-22-2017, 11:44 AM
Tom_in_MO's Avatar
Tom_in_MO
US Army Veteran

Join Date: 
Apr 2016
Location: 
St. Louis, MO
Posts: 
1,554
TPC Rating: 
100% (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crackedcornish View Post
droop usually shows up when people start wantin' to hang free floatin heavy bull barrels off the front of the receiver and shooting at stuff 100 yards away
Ahh sooo, thank you for informing grasshopper of true situation.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-22-2017, 12:02 PM
86c's Avatar
86c
US Air Force Veteran

Join Date: 
Jul 2014
Posts: 
1,657
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
As always, lots of ways to skin the cat.

The only way to know which is 'best' and why is to try them all.

You can't beat threaded-in IF it is straight and parallel to the scope rail in both x/y axis.

The v-block or other retainer blocks, as Randy says, will never be as stable as thread-in. He is right. The reason in expansion/contraction vs temperature. That does not get better with alternative retainer blocks. The stock type and free-float vs other bedding and barrel bands etc methods will make a huge difference on how stable it is w/o threading in. Epoxy in helps but does not cure.

The gunsmither retainer block and others will raise the barrel up. How much depends again on the gun/stock details like tenon o.d. and receiver hole i.d.

It will also center the barrel relative the scope rail.

I have done it both ways. Using a flat block with epoxied in barrel and with v-block. Also used set screws from above and below and only above and only below.

Did not base results on live fire alone. Also evaluated over temperature using a laser to measure the changes in poi vs poa without having the action installed in stock that influenced the results.

In other words, I isolated the measurement directly to the retainer blocks and their torque settings.

Results then verified (to enough extent to satisfy me) with live fire.

Also did this with two actions. Results virtually identical to each other.

Conclusion... the 'best' method for me is to simply put steel epoxy under the barrel to fill the void between the receiver tang and the barrel using the t/d screw to hold the barrel pointed up and centered at the same time. When epoxy is fully cured... install v-block and torque. I do not use a torque wrench. I do use assy lube (frog lube) and torque very firmly. More than everyone says is best. People like to quote Kidd because they recommend 10in/lbs for their free-floated barrels to avoid excessive pulling down (droop) of the barrel. That is fine if you have Kidd and free float and otherwise happy. That rule does not apply to me with my factory carbine/sporter and aftermarket sporter barrels in stocks that have barrel bedding, and/or barrel bands.

Believe it or not... the 'testing' I did was simple, fast, easy. So were the 'fixes' including machining the bird's mouth flat to the receiver and milling the v-block flat to test the results of that style of retainer.

BTW, it is clear to me that the gunsmither method/product is a good one and may be the best option in many cases for a variety of reasons including fast/easy on/off of a barrel. Best is a relative term. Epoxy is best for me.

I will also note that I have done both loctite on the tenon and epoxy to fill the void and support the barrel and epoxy only. Epoxy only, for whatever reason, seemed to work best overall.

Will be doing a third. The third will be same as the second. The second was the simplest, easiest, and imo best.

https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums...d.php?t=629161

Also note that the first one I did with the set screw installed in the bottom of the tang has been removed twice with my diy barrel pusher. As yet, have not had to use any acetone to loosen the epoxy. Waxing the parts first makes it relatively easy to scrape out any epoxy residue stuck to parts after removal.

RCP phoenix says he has removed a few barrels installed with loctite easily with acetone. No reason to doubt that.

Took me longer to write this post than it did to 'fix' mine to be dead on windage at 25yds and 3" high at 50yds with good scope centered in its travel.

Takes a little longer to remove. 10 minutes to do. 15-20min to undo. Most of which is gather the scraps of wood and c-clamp to do the deed.

The action with no set screws and just epoxy to fill the void with barrel aligned via the t/d screw shown in the thread linked to above did not have its own stock at the time I did the field test at 50yds.

Since then I put in a vintage carbine stock. As the first target in this thread shows...it shoots just fine with 'target grade' ammo. What more can you ask for from a factory sporter/carbine. The 'fix' used about 10cents worth of Devcon. That was it!

https://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums...d.php?t=800385

Another thing to note... Long before I started with epoxy and/or loctite on these 1022 barrels I had an Al tenon barrel I wanted to get out but the tenon had been peened enough by the bolt to make it impossible w/o a pusher or 'something'. I was told that many folks have 'shot them loose'. One of the times I removed an epoxied in barrel I did exactly that. I do endorse it in any way. I am the ONLY person on the planet who can do it safely. However, it did work great.
---------------

Last edited by 86c; 01-22-2017 at 12:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-22-2017, 01:45 PM
Tom_in_MO's Avatar
Tom_in_MO
US Army Veteran

Join Date: 
Apr 2016
Location: 
St. Louis, MO
Posts: 
1,554
TPC Rating: 
100% (1)
86c, you are dragging me deep down the rabbit hole! I've been getting a good edumacation lately.

I always felt bad about having a flyer in a 5-shot group, until a few days ago when I found out about pinning the firing pin, and other accurizing techniques. Can't wait to see how it shoots after being Randyized.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-22-2017, 02:14 PM
86c's Avatar
86c
US Air Force Veteran

Join Date: 
Jul 2014
Posts: 
1,657
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_in_MO View Post
86c, you are dragging me deep down the rabbit hole! I've been getting a good edumacation lately.

I always felt bad about having a flyer in a 5-shot group, until a few days ago when I found out about pinning the firing pin, and other accurizing techniques. Can't wait to see how it shoots after being Randyized.
No doubt in my mind that CPC does great job. Can't vouch for it personally, tho.

I proved to myself, using the laser, that the mechanical advantage of pushing the barrel up and centering it at the same time, no matter which method I used, would NEVER be what a threaded in barrel installation could be in terms of mechanical advantage.

Also, I proved to myself that all the methods of barrel installation and retaining had no effect that I could detect on accuracy good or bad. It was simply a matter, for me, of having the scope be "ON" with the scope centered in its travel. That is easy.

Kind of like trying to explain in writing in detail of how to ride a bicycle. MUCH easier to just do it.

Last thing... this is just me... if I were going to send it out I would get the thread-in while the gettin' is good.

All the other stuff goes away.

Now, assuming he threads the barrel in such that the scope tube and bore are not only aligned really well for windage, but also parallel to each other on the elevation axis...

And assuming the scope is of good quality/condition and centered in its x/y travel...

At 10yds the difference between POA and POI should be extremely close to the difference of the height of the center of the tube from the bore. Lets assume 1.5".

Now, the typical SV bullet drop at 50yds from the muzzle is going to be in the 4" range. Add that to the 1.5" below scope. That is total of 6.5" give or take an inch. At 50yds that is 13moa.

IF... (like it was for me) the scope is a v-24 with only a total of 30moa of adjustment...that is 15moa up and 15moa down from center. A bit of a challenge to say the least.

SO... In a perfect world (you know...the one where money is no object )... I get myself what I know to be the best mechanical advantage for overall stability and consistency for windage and put the correct offset tip-off rail on to compensate for the limited adjustment range of my favorite and best scope.

I swear I might try it someday because I like the factory 10/22 once it has been optimized for what it is w/o changing its character overall.

Last edited by 86c; 01-22-2017 at 02:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-22-2017, 02:28 PM
Tom_in_MO's Avatar
Tom_in_MO
US Army Veteran

Join Date: 
Apr 2016
Location: 
St. Louis, MO
Posts: 
1,554
TPC Rating: 
100% (1)
But what about threading affecting the front iron sight lineup?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-22-2017, 02:40 PM
crackedcornish's Avatar
crackedcornish
NRA Member - Click Here To Join!

Join Date: 
Dec 2006
Posts: 
4,139
TPC Rating: 
100% (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 86c View Post
... In a perfect world
of course in a perfect world (which unfortunately, is not the world Ruger, or the rest of us, lives in) the barrel hole would be straight in the receiver, like it is in most, if not all of the aftermarket CNC'ed receivers, and nobody would have to do all this fussing about worrying about barrel droop or canted barrels
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-22-2017, 02:50 PM
86c's Avatar
86c
US Air Force Veteran

Join Date: 
Jul 2014
Posts: 
1,657
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_in_MO View Post
But what about threading affecting the front iron sight lineup?
You would have to ask Randy about that. Devil is in the details.

If the factory flip up rear sight is retained then its a done deal. The bore to scope-rail alignment would effect a rear-sight mounted on the receiver. Most likely to the good. Almost positively to the good I would think. Why would it not be.

Now if you are refering to receiver mounted iron sight being way off due to rotational alignment during the threading process that would be different. That would be detail only Randy can really answer. However, speculation, I seriously doubt that it could be that much different from your (presumably) box-stock type installation and that the drift available for the windage on the front combined with the adjustment range in the rear should cover way, way more than one could be off and still have the ejection slot in the tenon still line up with the bolt.

Again, only Randy can answer you. More speculation...if it was a problem you would have most likely heard about it here on RFC from his other customers.

As always, the key to getting good answers is the ask the right question from the right person...That being the one doing the work.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-22-2017, 02:57 PM
86c's Avatar
86c
US Air Force Veteran

Join Date: 
Jul 2014
Posts: 
1,657
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crackedcornish View Post
of course in a perfect world (which unfortunately, is not the world Ruger, or the rest of us, lives in) the barrel hole would be straight in the receiver, like it is in most, if not all of the aftermarket CNC'ed receivers, and nobody would have to do all this fussing about worrying about barrel droop or canted barrels
Good point.

Personally, I like the fact that I don't have to have an aftermarket receiver that cost as much or more than a whole rifle just to align the bore to the scope.

Ten cents and Ten minutes does it. I suppose you do have to buy a $5 tube of Devcon or JB Weld to get the one drop of epoxy that puts it dead on as can be.

I can fix mine faster than I can order parts I can't pay for.

My method isn't for everyone. But it does work great, imo.

Again with the threading... If I were going to buy a KIDD barreled action... I would order mine threaded in. Just me.

I have gone around in circles with that as far as having a preference but after doing the temperature testing of various retainer methods that have to be used if the action is not thread-in I am convinced that I would go with thread in if I were in that market.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-22-2017, 04:24 PM
Tom_in_MO's Avatar
Tom_in_MO
US Army Veteran

Join Date: 
Apr 2016
Location: 
St. Louis, MO
Posts: 
1,554
TPC Rating: 
100% (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 86c View Post
You would have to ask Randy about that. Devil is in the details.

If the factory flip up rear sight is retained then its a done deal. The bore to scope-rail alignment would effect a rear-sight mounted on the receiver. Most likely to the good. Almost positively to the good I would think. Why would it not be.

Now if you are refering to receiver mounted iron sight being way off due to rotational alignment during the threading process that would be different. That would be detail only Randy can really answer. However, speculation, I seriously doubt that it could be that much different from your (presumably) box-stock type installation and that the drift available for the windage on the front combined with the adjustment range in the rear should cover way, way more than one could be off and still have the ejection slot in the tenon still line up with the bolt.

Again, only Randy can answer you. More speculation...if it was a problem you would have most likely heard about it here on RFC from his other customers.

As always, the key to getting good answers is the ask the right question from the right person...That being the one doing the work.
The rear iron is a Tech Sight, mounted on the receiver of course, hence the question.

But after reading your post, I got to thinking it probably wouldn't be a problem anyway, since the extractor notch would still need to line up in the rear of the barrel. Making that come out right would automatically put the front sight where it needed to be. But I will ask Randy about this, just to nail it down for sure. It would be nice to go to Appleseed in July with a sleeper Supergrade!

Just re-read what you wrote. I guess what you are calling the ejection slot is what I am calling the extractor notch (probably the wrong term on my part).

Last edited by Tom_in_MO; 01-22-2017 at 04:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-22-2017, 05:45 PM
86c's Avatar
86c
US Air Force Veteran

Join Date: 
Jul 2014
Posts: 
1,657
TPC Rating: 
0% (0)
EXTRACTOR...is correct, sorry. :0
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:01 AM.

Privacy Policy

DMCA Notice

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2000-2018 RimfireCentral.com
x