I've been doing all my action truing in a lathe; I see Dave Manson's tooling to do the work without a lathe and am intrigued. Expensive, but a lot less setup time. Anybody here using it? What do you think?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Gunsmithing Manson Tooling
- Thread starter zenbiker
- Start date
Re: Manson Tooling
It is fun to talk to Dave on the phone, he is concise and task oriented.
It is fun to build action truing fixtures. A ground pin in a reamed hole can fit so well, you can readily feel the difference between lubricants.
It is fun to true actions and think it will help accuracy.
But I gave up on action truing, case weighing, neck turning, flash hole de-burring, and shooting from a bench rest.
Action truing may help my accuracy like a butterfly sneeze my increase the magnitude of a hurricane, but not enough for me to measure.
It is fun to talk to Dave on the phone, he is concise and task oriented.
It is fun to build action truing fixtures. A ground pin in a reamed hole can fit so well, you can readily feel the difference between lubricants.
It is fun to true actions and think it will help accuracy.
But I gave up on action truing, case weighing, neck turning, flash hole de-burring, and shooting from a bench rest.
Action truing may help my accuracy like a butterfly sneeze my increase the magnitude of a hurricane, but not enough for me to measure.
Re: Manson Tooling
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1ZNUF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've been doing all my action truing in a lathe; I see Dave Manson's tooling to do the work without a lathe and am intrigued. Expensive, but a lot less setup time. Anybody here using it? What do you think? </div></div>
No matter what anyone else say the only way you are going to satisfy this question to yourself is to do it each way and see what you come up with. When done you'll have answered your own question.
From experience I can say you will be surprised, and then again maybe not
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1ZNUF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've been doing all my action truing in a lathe; I see Dave Manson's tooling to do the work without a lathe and am intrigued. Expensive, but a lot less setup time. Anybody here using it? What do you think? </div></div>
No matter what anyone else say the only way you are going to satisfy this question to yourself is to do it each way and see what you come up with. When done you'll have answered your own question.
From experience I can say you will be surprised, and then again maybe not
Re: Manson Tooling
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HateCA</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> From experience I can say you will be surprised</div></div>
I've done it both ways and was surpeised at how true the receiver was when completed. While the Manson/PTG Tooling works great the surface finish isnt as good as it is when it comes from the lathe. The Tooling will dull quicker than you think and re-sharpening will be required.
Nothing beats the single point method and this is still the most percise way to machine parts.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HateCA</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> From experience I can say you will be surprised</div></div>
I've done it both ways and was surpeised at how true the receiver was when completed. While the Manson/PTG Tooling works great the surface finish isnt as good as it is when it comes from the lathe. The Tooling will dull quicker than you think and re-sharpening will be required.
Nothing beats the single point method and this is still the most percise way to machine parts.
Re: Manson Tooling
I have done a few with the Manson tooling and honestly all of the rifles were below 1/2 MOA shooters. I know that gets thrown around alot, but they were. I cant contribute their accuracy to the Manson tooling, or the great Krieger barrels they wore with true, tight chambers.
I did get a wild hair on day and I indicated a Rem 700 receiver up into a GTR action blueprinting fixture that was previously trued with Manson tooling. Because any tap will simply follow the existing threads, it was no surprise that the new threads were still not concentric with the bolt raceway. I did recut them and I dont remember how off they were, but it took maybe .010" to get clean solid cuts. The action lugs and the receiver face were pretty true, but the threads were not. The thing is, with the Manson tooling, you cant true the receiver lugs or the receiver face with out cutting or reaming out the threads.
The thing I took out of it was that if the bolt lugs and receiver lugs are mated up, the receiver face is true, the recoil lug is parallel and the barrel is chambered correctly, you can still get a pretty good shooting rifle.
I would still argue that having the threads concentric to the bore is better than not, but is that difference going to be night and day????? Too many other variables to probably tell.
I have done a few with the Manson tooling and honestly all of the rifles were below 1/2 MOA shooters. I know that gets thrown around alot, but they were. I cant contribute their accuracy to the Manson tooling, or the great Krieger barrels they wore with true, tight chambers.
I did get a wild hair on day and I indicated a Rem 700 receiver up into a GTR action blueprinting fixture that was previously trued with Manson tooling. Because any tap will simply follow the existing threads, it was no surprise that the new threads were still not concentric with the bolt raceway. I did recut them and I dont remember how off they were, but it took maybe .010" to get clean solid cuts. The action lugs and the receiver face were pretty true, but the threads were not. The thing is, with the Manson tooling, you cant true the receiver lugs or the receiver face with out cutting or reaming out the threads.
The thing I took out of it was that if the bolt lugs and receiver lugs are mated up, the receiver face is true, the recoil lug is parallel and the barrel is chambered correctly, you can still get a pretty good shooting rifle.
I would still argue that having the threads concentric to the bore is better than not, but is that difference going to be night and day????? Too many other variables to probably tell.
Re: Manson Tooling
Handgunner, I'm on the same page with you about the mating surfaces. While a master machinist takes great pride in his threading, a very well known 'smith told me "threads just hold the barrel to the action; as long as they're not too loose and the action and barrel are parallel, the quality of the threads is pretty much unimportant". HateCA, I agree about trying it, but I think after reading this thread I'm likely to spend the money on improving my single point tooling rather than buy the Manson tooling, especially since I just work on my own stuff and setup time is not as big a consideration as a 'smith who's trying to put food on the table.
The thread concentricity issue has always bugged me about the Manson tooling; the only way to recut threads is with a single point tool. I've tried taps in the tailstock and other "shortcuts", but still, its back to the basics.
Thanks, guys. I needed the reality check.
Regards,
Wes
Handgunner, I'm on the same page with you about the mating surfaces. While a master machinist takes great pride in his threading, a very well known 'smith told me "threads just hold the barrel to the action; as long as they're not too loose and the action and barrel are parallel, the quality of the threads is pretty much unimportant". HateCA, I agree about trying it, but I think after reading this thread I'm likely to spend the money on improving my single point tooling rather than buy the Manson tooling, especially since I just work on my own stuff and setup time is not as big a consideration as a 'smith who's trying to put food on the table.
The thread concentricity issue has always bugged me about the Manson tooling; the only way to recut threads is with a single point tool. I've tried taps in the tailstock and other "shortcuts", but still, its back to the basics.
Thanks, guys. I needed the reality check.
Regards,
Wes
Re: Manson Tooling
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1ZNUF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.. a very well known 'smith told me "threads just hold the barrel to the action; as long as they're not too loose and the action and barrel are parallel, the quality of the threads is pretty much unimportant".
Wes </div></div>
The threads just contribute clamping force.
The barrel to receiver and scope alignment comes from the barrel shoulder to receiver interface and/or breech to inner C ring interface.
I have shot groups at different barrel torques.
5 foot pounds to 1000 foot pounds shoot the same, over the short run.
I suspect the 5 foot pounds installation will eventually shoot loose.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1ZNUF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.. a very well known 'smith told me "threads just hold the barrel to the action; as long as they're not too loose and the action and barrel are parallel, the quality of the threads is pretty much unimportant".
Wes </div></div>
The threads just contribute clamping force.
The barrel to receiver and scope alignment comes from the barrel shoulder to receiver interface and/or breech to inner C ring interface.
I have shot groups at different barrel torques.
5 foot pounds to 1000 foot pounds shoot the same, over the short run.
I suspect the 5 foot pounds installation will eventually shoot loose.
Re: Manson Tooling
I've used Manson's tooling ever since it came out. That was probably 10 or more years after I started building rifles. We can debate the importance of each of the steps in truing an action but one thing I know that is way down on the list is thread concentricity. Action lugs, bolt lugs and receiver face are the three most important surfaces as in one way or another they influence several factors in the performance and function of the rifle. I believe that as long as the barrel threads are cut loose enough, yes loose not tight, to allow the shoulder on the barrel to square up with the receiver there is not much else to be gained no matter which method you use on the action threads. I've tapped 28 actions with my current tap and it's still sharp. Clean the action well and use Moly Dee lube and the taps will last longer.
I've used Manson's tooling ever since it came out. That was probably 10 or more years after I started building rifles. We can debate the importance of each of the steps in truing an action but one thing I know that is way down on the list is thread concentricity. Action lugs, bolt lugs and receiver face are the three most important surfaces as in one way or another they influence several factors in the performance and function of the rifle. I believe that as long as the barrel threads are cut loose enough, yes loose not tight, to allow the shoulder on the barrel to square up with the receiver there is not much else to be gained no matter which method you use on the action threads. I've tapped 28 actions with my current tap and it's still sharp. Clean the action well and use Moly Dee lube and the taps will last longer.
Re: Manson Tooling
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1ZNUF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Handgunner, I'm on the same page with you about the mating surfaces. While a master machinist takes great pride in his threading, a very well known 'smith told me "threads just hold the barrel to the action; as long as they're not too loose and the action and barrel are parallel, the quality of the threads is pretty much unimportant". HateCA, I agree about trying it, but I think after reading this thread I'm likely to spend the money on improving my single point tooling rather than buy the Manson tooling, especially since I just work on my own stuff and setup time is not as big a consideration as a 'smith who's trying to put food on the table.
The thread concentricity issue has always bugged me about the Manson tooling; the only way to recut threads is with a single point tool. I've tried taps in the tailstock and other "shortcuts", but still, its back to the basics.
Thanks, guys. I needed the reality check.
Regards,
Wes </div></div>
I agree single point cutting is the best and that's what most do including me. The point is over the years I've done some crazy and not so crazy things just to see for myself what one could get away with when building or putting together a rifle. And I can tell you from experience you can get away with a lot.
A lot of builders or whoever are quick to jump on the fact that something shouldn't be done this way or that, or the Manson Tools or whatever set up one is using is crap, and this way or that is the only way to do it. Well I can tell you that's bunk. There are different ways and techniques that can be done that get you the same results in the same type of rifle.
Would I use the Manson tooling to build a BR rifle? No because I don't build BR rifles and there should be no need to true a BR action, and the tolerances are way tighter then a field or tactical rifle needs to be, but hey one might try it, I just never have.
But could one use the Manson Tools to build a kick ass field or tactical rifle? Hell yes and it will shoot just as well as one that was chucked up in the lathe and single point cut.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1ZNUF</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Handgunner, I'm on the same page with you about the mating surfaces. While a master machinist takes great pride in his threading, a very well known 'smith told me "threads just hold the barrel to the action; as long as they're not too loose and the action and barrel are parallel, the quality of the threads is pretty much unimportant". HateCA, I agree about trying it, but I think after reading this thread I'm likely to spend the money on improving my single point tooling rather than buy the Manson tooling, especially since I just work on my own stuff and setup time is not as big a consideration as a 'smith who's trying to put food on the table.
The thread concentricity issue has always bugged me about the Manson tooling; the only way to recut threads is with a single point tool. I've tried taps in the tailstock and other "shortcuts", but still, its back to the basics.
Thanks, guys. I needed the reality check.
Regards,
Wes </div></div>
I agree single point cutting is the best and that's what most do including me. The point is over the years I've done some crazy and not so crazy things just to see for myself what one could get away with when building or putting together a rifle. And I can tell you from experience you can get away with a lot.
A lot of builders or whoever are quick to jump on the fact that something shouldn't be done this way or that, or the Manson Tools or whatever set up one is using is crap, and this way or that is the only way to do it. Well I can tell you that's bunk. There are different ways and techniques that can be done that get you the same results in the same type of rifle.
Would I use the Manson tooling to build a BR rifle? No because I don't build BR rifles and there should be no need to true a BR action, and the tolerances are way tighter then a field or tactical rifle needs to be, but hey one might try it, I just never have.
But could one use the Manson Tools to build a kick ass field or tactical rifle? Hell yes and it will shoot just as well as one that was chucked up in the lathe and single point cut.
Re: Manson Tooling
In my opinion, the mass majority who bash this tool or that tool means the ruined some project in the past using it and had to blame something. Randy, you're right, you can get away with certain things, and BR aside, Manson makes fine stuff.
In my opinion, the mass majority who bash this tool or that tool means the ruined some project in the past using it and had to blame something. Randy, you're right, you can get away with certain things, and BR aside, Manson makes fine stuff.
Re: Manson Tooling
Believe it or not guys but Randy is 100% on the ball here. Ive deliberately gone out of my way in the past to see how far I could go and still have an accurate shooter.For example, Ive mated an action to a remington 700 with various tolerances, the ideal tolerance for bolt lugs to barrel face is 5 to 8 thou and the same for bolt front face etc, Ive gone as far as 20+ just to see what the outcome would be and guess what, no shift in accuracy, however, in my experiment I never tampered with headspace, this should always be kept within spec. This is by no means a crash course for beginners to start not giving a shit about barrel specs, one should always work within safe tolerances when rebarreling, thats a given but I just wanted to see for my own research purposes, what I could play with and get away with, this was my own rifle too by the way which I later brought back into 5 thou clearance all round. So I think this supports Randy's theory too.
Believe it or not guys but Randy is 100% on the ball here. Ive deliberately gone out of my way in the past to see how far I could go and still have an accurate shooter.For example, Ive mated an action to a remington 700 with various tolerances, the ideal tolerance for bolt lugs to barrel face is 5 to 8 thou and the same for bolt front face etc, Ive gone as far as 20+ just to see what the outcome would be and guess what, no shift in accuracy, however, in my experiment I never tampered with headspace, this should always be kept within spec. This is by no means a crash course for beginners to start not giving a shit about barrel specs, one should always work within safe tolerances when rebarreling, thats a given but I just wanted to see for my own research purposes, what I could play with and get away with, this was my own rifle too by the way which I later brought back into 5 thou clearance all round. So I think this supports Randy's theory too.
Re: Manson Tooling
I just read a series of articles on the Brownells website. It was in 4 parts and titled "Build Your Own 700 Remington." The articles were well-written and may have bitten me enough to shell out the cash for the tools.
I just read a series of articles on the Brownells website. It was in 4 parts and titled "Build Your Own 700 Remington." The articles were well-written and may have bitten me enough to shell out the cash for the tools.
Re: Manson Tooling
http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=10508..._700___Part_III
The data presented in those articles for accuracy improvement is spurious.
I could build a 20 pound 6mmBR with that action in untrued state, put big scope on it, shoot when there is no wind, and get enough improvement to prove their comparison is invalid.
Promoting expensive benchrest rituals for 2" guns is a deception.
"How the mind Works" book by Steven Pinker suggests that people can solve a logic problem much better if they think they are being cheated.
If I design a test to be performed by engineering technicians, I can't just draw sketches and wave my hands. I have to hang around, because people often do not have a feel for out of control variables.
The key to communication when technicians do not see the out of control variable it to describe how the out of control variable is cheating them. Phrase the problem such that the technician is taking ownership of the accuracy of the test and the out of control variable is robbing them.
Did Brownells use double blind shooting tests so the shooter did not know which gun had been trued?
Did they maintain an untrued rifle as a control?
What was the wind at each test?
For your feeling of being bitten by the articles, consider that you are being deceived to cheat you out of your money and something that will do you no measurable good. Then [while your logic bone is tickled] consider the meaning of the statement that a much more accurate rifle could be made of the action [unaltered] with less money.
This 0.55" 6mm group 5 shot at 100 yards by rem700 with receiver that was bent in a vise. The action threads are oblong shaped and galled. Factory barrels will no longer screw into this action unless the action is pinched into a round shape when the barrel is screwed in. A shot out, cut down Krieger barrel had small threads cut, and the rifle went to the range as an experiment, and shot 5 different groups averaging .78" in 6mph gusty wind, with 10X scope.
http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=10508..._700___Part_III
The data presented in those articles for accuracy improvement is spurious.
I could build a 20 pound 6mmBR with that action in untrued state, put big scope on it, shoot when there is no wind, and get enough improvement to prove their comparison is invalid.
Promoting expensive benchrest rituals for 2" guns is a deception.
"How the mind Works" book by Steven Pinker suggests that people can solve a logic problem much better if they think they are being cheated.
If I design a test to be performed by engineering technicians, I can't just draw sketches and wave my hands. I have to hang around, because people often do not have a feel for out of control variables.
The key to communication when technicians do not see the out of control variable it to describe how the out of control variable is cheating them. Phrase the problem such that the technician is taking ownership of the accuracy of the test and the out of control variable is robbing them.
Did Brownells use double blind shooting tests so the shooter did not know which gun had been trued?
Did they maintain an untrued rifle as a control?
What was the wind at each test?
For your feeling of being bitten by the articles, consider that you are being deceived to cheat you out of your money and something that will do you no measurable good. Then [while your logic bone is tickled] consider the meaning of the statement that a much more accurate rifle could be made of the action [unaltered] with less money.
This 0.55" 6mm group 5 shot at 100 yards by rem700 with receiver that was bent in a vise. The action threads are oblong shaped and galled. Factory barrels will no longer screw into this action unless the action is pinched into a round shape when the barrel is screwed in. A shot out, cut down Krieger barrel had small threads cut, and the rifle went to the range as an experiment, and shot 5 different groups averaging .78" in 6mph gusty wind, with 10X scope.
Re: Manson Tooling
Not sure how you measure groups, that isn't a .55" group...
I'd lean a lot closer to a mid .6" to a .7"
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Promoting expensive benchrest rituals for 2" guns is a deception.</div></div>
Okay, in my point of view we're not considering 2" guns here. I would think our expectations are quite a bit more in line with under 1/2MOA. As I've discussed with fellow F-Class shooters, look at the results of 600 yard or 1000 yard Benchrest matches and then compair those results to what we're trying to accomplish in F-Class(specifically F-TR). I wouldn't think of going to the line with a rifle that's only capable of 1MOA let alone a 2MOA rifle.
Not sure how you measure groups, that isn't a .55" group...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Promoting expensive benchrest rituals for 2" guns is a deception.</div></div>
Okay, in my point of view we're not considering 2" guns here. I would think our expectations are quite a bit more in line with under 1/2MOA. As I've discussed with fellow F-Class shooters, look at the results of 600 yard or 1000 yard Benchrest matches and then compair those results to what we're trying to accomplish in F-Class(specifically F-TR). I wouldn't think of going to the line with a rifle that's only capable of 1MOA let alone a 2MOA rifle.
Re: Manson Tooling
Thanks Clark,
I still think Bob B. at Brownells is a stand up guy. Your opinion may vary.
Thanks Clark,
I still think Bob B. at Brownells is a stand up guy. Your opinion may vary.
Re: Manson Tooling
All those engineering techs are stand up guys. They just don't understand what is an out of control variable to the point where they apply it to a test they are building.
We don't have a formula for accuracy on Math Cad that predicts each trip to the range's results.
This reminds me of a story. My neighbor had the basement flood when it rained. He got a bid on a fix, and paid $20k. They dug up his yard for months, put in an interceptor drain, dug up his foundation, put a drain around it and painted the foundation on the outside and inside with a sealer.
It still leaked.
So he got another bid from a different contractor.
While walking around the house with the new contractor, the contractor noticed that a downspout was not connected and the top was pointed into a crack in the siding. The contractor bumped the down spout and the two pipes were reconnected. The second guy never got any money, but he did fix the problem.
Both contractors were stand up guys.
We just have to work smarter and not harder when it comes to action truing. I fell for it, because I read about it in a book. I did it to many rifles before I found it that it did not help.
So often with accuracy rituals, it is easier to do them than to make a controlled test to see if they are helping measurably.
There must always be another way to look at something.
If truing an action by chasing threads nets .001" group improvement per $1000 spent, and buying a factory lapped barrel nets 1.000" per $1000 spent, then the barrels would be higher on the priority list.
All those engineering techs are stand up guys. They just don't understand what is an out of control variable to the point where they apply it to a test they are building.
We don't have a formula for accuracy on Math Cad that predicts each trip to the range's results.
This reminds me of a story. My neighbor had the basement flood when it rained. He got a bid on a fix, and paid $20k. They dug up his yard for months, put in an interceptor drain, dug up his foundation, put a drain around it and painted the foundation on the outside and inside with a sealer.
It still leaked.
So he got another bid from a different contractor.
While walking around the house with the new contractor, the contractor noticed that a downspout was not connected and the top was pointed into a crack in the siding. The contractor bumped the down spout and the two pipes were reconnected. The second guy never got any money, but he did fix the problem.
Both contractors were stand up guys.
We just have to work smarter and not harder when it comes to action truing. I fell for it, because I read about it in a book. I did it to many rifles before I found it that it did not help.
So often with accuracy rituals, it is easier to do them than to make a controlled test to see if they are helping measurably.
There must always be another way to look at something.
If truing an action by chasing threads nets .001" group improvement per $1000 spent, and buying a factory lapped barrel nets 1.000" per $1000 spent, then the barrels would be higher on the priority list.
Re: Manson Tooling
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Not sure how you measure groups, that isn't a .55" group...
I'd lean a lot closer to a mid .6" to a .7"
</div></div>
I just pulled that range report and measured that group at 0.63".
You were right.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AJ300MAG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Not sure how you measure groups, that isn't a .55" group...
</div></div>
I just pulled that range report and measured that group at 0.63".
You were right.
Re: Manson Tooling
gamma,
i believe the clearances you speak of have little to do with accuracy potential. they are for safety sake in the event of a case rupture and to help prevent one.
chuck
gamma,
i believe the clearances you speak of have little to do with accuracy potential. they are for safety sake in the event of a case rupture and to help prevent one.
chuck
Re: Manson Tooling
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: selfbowhunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">gamma,
i believe the clearances you speak of have little to do with accuracy potential. they are for safety sake in the event of a case rupture and to help prevent one.
chuck </div></div>
Yes but a lot of folks make it sound like it's the end all be all to obtain accuracy. It's not, and things were done just as an experiment or just to see. Nothing was ever passed on to some un-suspecting rifle shooter but to show what can be done and still have excellent accuracy.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: selfbowhunter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">gamma,
i believe the clearances you speak of have little to do with accuracy potential. they are for safety sake in the event of a case rupture and to help prevent one.
chuck </div></div>
Yes but a lot of folks make it sound like it's the end all be all to obtain accuracy. It's not, and things were done just as an experiment or just to see. Nothing was ever passed on to some un-suspecting rifle shooter but to show what can be done and still have excellent accuracy.
Re: Manson Tooling
Clark,
Thank you for your input. I try to look at both sides of an issue and come up with hypotheticals, ask why and what if? I just thought the articles were interesting and I like the idea of DIY, within some constraints.
The points you made were excellent.
Again, thank you for your thoughts.
david
Clark,
Thank you for your input. I try to look at both sides of an issue and come up with hypotheticals, ask why and what if? I just thought the articles were interesting and I like the idea of DIY, within some constraints.
The points you made were excellent.
Again, thank you for your thoughts.
david
Re: Manson Tooling
I have not used Dave's receiver tools. But I have talked to him a lot several years ago when I was still working. He knows what he's talking about.
I have not used Dave's receiver tools. But I have talked to him a lot several years ago when I was still working. He knows what he's talking about.
Re: Manson Tooling
Dave's about an hour away from me. I drove down there to pick up a reamer, made the mistake of telling him I'm a Toolmaker by trade. That earned me the grand tour of his shop plus an indepth explanation on a few gunsmithing issues. No doubt he has the experience to back up his claims...
Dave's about an hour away from me. I drove down there to pick up a reamer, made the mistake of telling him I'm a Toolmaker by trade. That earned me the grand tour of his shop plus an indepth explanation on a few gunsmithing issues. No doubt he has the experience to back up his claims...
Re: Manson Tooling
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Clark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=10508..._700___Part_III
If I design a test to be performed by engineering technicians, I can't just draw sketches and wave my hands. I have to hang around, because people often do not have a feel for out of control variables. </div></div>
Drawing sketches and waving of hands is not a test plan. A test should explain what is being tested and how to perform the test. A valid test plan should allow the same test to be performed at different facilities by different testers and get the same results within your data confidence factor.
Alan
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Clark</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/lid=10508..._700___Part_III
If I design a test to be performed by engineering technicians, I can't just draw sketches and wave my hands. I have to hang around, because people often do not have a feel for out of control variables. </div></div>
Drawing sketches and waving of hands is not a test plan. A test should explain what is being tested and how to perform the test. A valid test plan should allow the same test to be performed at different facilities by different testers and get the same results within your data confidence factor.
Alan
Similar threads
Gunsmithing
Go-to for high end files?
