-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Gunsmithing Truing an action
- Thread starter EddieE
- Start date
Just spend the money on a "good" action to begin with. Cry once. You will be much further ahead in the long run. Remove all doubt. Been there, done that, a long time ago. My personal recommendation is Bighorn. But there are so many good ones out there, you really can't go wrong with any of them.
This was more of a hypothetical question. I don't have an action that needs truing. People charge lots of $ for "trued R700". How does that translate to the performance of the action? Is the cycling smoother? Seems most of the trued guns are darn accurate. Is that a function of the truing or the $600 custom barrel? What if the same barrel was put on an untrued action, would you get the same performance?
I have a Tikka T3x in 223 and it is such a finely made gun for the price (not talking about the stock..it is crap). The action and barrel are excellent in my opinion. I also have a R700 made in 1985 with probably less than 100 rounds through it. Also a nice action. Pretty smooth...but nowhere near as nice as the Tikka.
I have a Tikka T3x in 223 and it is such a finely made gun for the price (not talking about the stock..it is crap). The action and barrel are excellent in my opinion. I also have a R700 made in 1985 with probably less than 100 rounds through it. Also a nice action. Pretty smooth...but nowhere near as nice as the Tikka.
Last edited:
“Most” rifles are more accurate than thier shooters.
So for the vast amount of people out there, they may see some difference, but thier skills are not up to the task of outshooting a stock rifle.
This is just me spitballing. But don’t bother with a custom action or blueprinted one. Save the money and buy a lot of ammo and go shooting a lot.
Once you are conaistently sub-MOA at least, sub 3/4” would be my line..... then start looking at custom barrels and actions.
Not only will you have a ave a much better idea of what you are after in a rifle, but you will have practiced and acquired the skills needed to appreciate the higher quality firearm.
Example. If a lousy shooter buys a custom rifle and goes from 3.5” groups to 3.25” groups. Who really cares? And there isn’t enough skill involved to know if it was the rifle or just a lucky group. But a good shot going from .7” groups to .4” is huge.
This is all just an opinion though, and what your budget looks like could make it a non issue as well.
So for the vast amount of people out there, they may see some difference, but thier skills are not up to the task of outshooting a stock rifle.
This is just me spitballing. But don’t bother with a custom action or blueprinted one. Save the money and buy a lot of ammo and go shooting a lot.
Once you are conaistently sub-MOA at least, sub 3/4” would be my line..... then start looking at custom barrels and actions.
Not only will you have a ave a much better idea of what you are after in a rifle, but you will have practiced and acquired the skills needed to appreciate the higher quality firearm.
Example. If a lousy shooter buys a custom rifle and goes from 3.5” groups to 3.25” groups. Who really cares? And there isn’t enough skill involved to know if it was the rifle or just a lucky group. But a good shot going from .7” groups to .4” is huge.
This is all just an opinion though, and what your budget looks like could make it a non issue as well.
IMO, an extremely accurate rifle is the result of a complete system. I do believe most would agree that the barrel itself is most important. This can be seen in some of today's factory rifles that cost merely a few hundred bucks- shooting sub minute in a tupperware stock and a bolt that rattles like a marble in a tin can. The rest, whether one goes with a "trued" or "blueprinted" action or an aftermarket clone- is for the most demanding accuracy requirements.
Depends.
Truing is used to describe several operations or sets of operations. It can vary from superficial to a nearly completely re-machined system.
With a "short" true, only the barrel tenon threads are cleaned up. The lugs and front of the receiver are squared off to that operation. You wouldn't notice any change for the better in the operation of the bolt. It's more likely to get worse from a reduction in primary extraction than better. This is the core of the accuracy work and the most bang for the buck.
If an aftermarket bolt is fitted to the action after reaming it larger, you would probably feel a noticeable improvement in the operation of the bolt. This would result from both the tighter, more concentric bolt fit and the timing operations required to fit an aftermarket bolt.
The other end is timing the existing bolt. The opening and closing of the bolt is improved, but any looseness in the original parts will still be there. Timing can also describe several operations. Primary extraction is the most common, trigger timing is less commonly done.
I agree with the earlier posts that it comes down to the barrel. Gunsmiths and the rest of the parts don't make the barrel more accurate. Some things just screw it up less. Truing assures the action doesn't make things tough for a good barrel.
IN this same thought, does a custom action like a Defiance,Stiller or Surgeon need "Trued" or Blueprinted before building?
^^^ This.
Usually, if one HAS a 700 action already, in the correct boltface it may make economic sense to get it blueprinted.
If buying, it usually makes economic sense to get a "precision clone" instead of buying an action off the shelf and paying a smith to blueprint it.
Usually, if one HAS a 700 action already, in the correct boltface it may make economic sense to get it blueprinted.
If buying, it usually makes economic sense to get a "precision clone" instead of buying an action off the shelf and paying a smith to blueprint it.
I not so sure that's true in a pure economic sense. A Stiller TAC or Predator Action which is around the lowest priced of the "precision clone" series will sent you back about $1k. You can buy Rem 700's in the $300. to $400. range (depending on whether it's blued or stainless) plus around $250. to $300 for trueing. So were talking $550. on the low end to $700 on the high end. The $300-$450. "saved" is enough to pay for a new barrel blank, so it's not chicken feed.
Don't get me wrong a custom clone brings a lot to the table for the $ you spend on it, but's it's not the only way nor the cheapest way. Buying the cheapest Tikka T3 rifle you can find, and selling or throwing away everything but the action, is another way you can get a $500 to $600 action that can play with the "precision clones" and Tikka's don't need truing like a Box stock Rem 700 usually do.
Yes, custom action like a Stiller have other goodies on board, plus it will have a "higher" resale value, but if your on a budget, and every $ counts, buying a Rem 700 and having it trued or a Tikka T3 donor rifle and just re-barreling, are not a bad ways to put the "C" in custom without having to go on a 3 month Ramen Noodle diet......IMHO and YMMV
One other thing to consider is how it was trued or blueprinted. One thing to think about is that yes a non blueprinted action with a top shelf barrel will shoot much better most of the time but in my opinion the real reason to blueprint is to line up all the surfaces. If you have a high side on the right of the action then you are going to angle the barrel in the way that it comes in contact with the rifle potentially causing what appear to
be wind call error. I have tried putting a “custom” action in a jig and they are typically a lot better but not perfect. The threads being single point cut parrelel to bolt bore raceway is as important as any other part of the truing process.
be wind call error. I have tried putting a “custom” action in a jig and they are typically a lot better but not perfect. The threads being single point cut parrelel to bolt bore raceway is as important as any other part of the truing process.
A M700 is almost never going to feel like a Defiance, BAT, Bighorn, or Mausingfield, etc... Timing the primary extraction and cocking can go a long way towards improving the felt bolt cycling, but it's rare that it ever ends up being in the same league as a custom. There are other things at work that prevent it. Surface finish and tolerancing (straightness, machine marks etc.) of the receiver bore and bolt body mean that almost always, the M700 is going to be a looser fit from the get-go. lapping or polishing the receiver bore/raceway is only going to loosen things up further so it won't ever feel "tight" unless you ream and bush the fit. There's also geometry on the cocking ramp on the back of the bolt body and front of the cocking piece. More care is put into proper execution in custom actions and typically results in lighter perceptible bolt lifts. Again, proper bolt handle geometry and timing on a M700 can improve things a LOT, but it won't necessarily feel like a custom.
So it entirely depends on what a "truing" job does. If they just clean up the receiver face, lug abutments, and barrel threads, but don't touch the handle timing... you're not really going to notice a difference. Likewise, if they don't even touch the receiver face, threads, or abutments, but do fix the timing, you will see a pretty decent improvement. So "truing" doesn't really do much for bolt cycling feel.
To be honest, I think cutting the receiver face, lug abutments, and threads is a waste of time/effort for 95% of the actions out there. The only actions I've seen that NEEDED to be fixed were ones that people tried to lap or "true" themselves and got the lugs all fucked up (though I'm sure there are a few exceptions out there that leave the factory dicked up, too). If I ever end up stepping down from my Mausingfield high horse and building a M700 again, it won't be trued, just have the bolt handle replaced, timed, and TIGed.
Truing/accurizing/blueprinting: It's a layman's term anymore. Kind of like "Truck".
In today's world running a tap down a hole magically qualifies an action as "trued" or "blueprinted". 10,15, 20 years ago that was grounds to be publicly flogged with hot shell casings and then boiled in Hoppes. I have likely explored this process more than just about anyone. I introduced using CNC machinery and 5 axis work holding 15 years ago. It would be a bold faced lie to suggest that doing it the way I've chosen to do creates a platform with greater accuracy potential. It doesn't. Many a gun plumbers have built hammer M700's using a conventional lathe. My advantage is I'm faster and I can consolidate some features into a single setup. There's other small improvements but its not really relevant to here.
You seem to be describing more the interface of user/gun than any sort of forensic machine work designed to make it shoot better. As mentioned, the relationship between parts and surface finish play far more into this than how square something is to what, etc.
Accurizing has its place. I politely disagree with Led's position on this. The vast majority of a rifle's potential lies in a premium barrel that is well fitted. That truth is a 10 commandment somewhere I'm sure. Realizing the receiver's role in this is tough to do because if you tune an action, you have to re-barrel it and I can't think of a single case in the last 20 years where someone had me do this and install the factory barrel back onto it. That scenario would also be biased because it would require a set back and re-chamber. I feel pretty good in stating that I'll dial a barrel in a little tighter than the factory does.
Data points, data points, and more data points. Guys who own big shops simply move more stuff. George, myself, and others too. If you put a few beers into us I think you'd find at some point of diminished sobriety that we'd all love to be able to just stab barrels on actions. The money is good and the setup isn't nearly so complicated. X10 for guys restricted to just one machine as it involves tearing stuff down and setting back up. The clock is made of bitch and your always cussing at it...
The accurizing process works. If it were a fluke then we should expect to see it erode away to extinction. The thing to remember here is small gains that by themselves mean almost nothing. I've had this analogy that I've used for years comparing this to a race car motor. You have to first have enough hp to be competitive. The last 5 or 10 that you find then becomes relevant. This is really no different. To a BR type shooter hell bent to use a factory receiver this is kind of a big deal as that game is very, very equipment oriented. On a plate match gamer gun or hunting rig its going to be a lot tougher to realize. Still, most will opt for it just for peace of mind.
Peace of mind does matter in shooting. I doubt many sky divers jump unless they have a high degree of confidence in their equipment. This really isn't all that different.
In today's world running a tap down a hole magically qualifies an action as "trued" or "blueprinted". 10,15, 20 years ago that was grounds to be publicly flogged with hot shell casings and then boiled in Hoppes. I have likely explored this process more than just about anyone. I introduced using CNC machinery and 5 axis work holding 15 years ago. It would be a bold faced lie to suggest that doing it the way I've chosen to do creates a platform with greater accuracy potential. It doesn't. Many a gun plumbers have built hammer M700's using a conventional lathe. My advantage is I'm faster and I can consolidate some features into a single setup. There's other small improvements but its not really relevant to here.
You seem to be describing more the interface of user/gun than any sort of forensic machine work designed to make it shoot better. As mentioned, the relationship between parts and surface finish play far more into this than how square something is to what, etc.
Accurizing has its place. I politely disagree with Led's position on this. The vast majority of a rifle's potential lies in a premium barrel that is well fitted. That truth is a 10 commandment somewhere I'm sure. Realizing the receiver's role in this is tough to do because if you tune an action, you have to re-barrel it and I can't think of a single case in the last 20 years where someone had me do this and install the factory barrel back onto it. That scenario would also be biased because it would require a set back and re-chamber. I feel pretty good in stating that I'll dial a barrel in a little tighter than the factory does.
Data points, data points, and more data points. Guys who own big shops simply move more stuff. George, myself, and others too. If you put a few beers into us I think you'd find at some point of diminished sobriety that we'd all love to be able to just stab barrels on actions. The money is good and the setup isn't nearly so complicated. X10 for guys restricted to just one machine as it involves tearing stuff down and setting back up. The clock is made of bitch and your always cussing at it...
The accurizing process works. If it were a fluke then we should expect to see it erode away to extinction. The thing to remember here is small gains that by themselves mean almost nothing. I've had this analogy that I've used for years comparing this to a race car motor. You have to first have enough hp to be competitive. The last 5 or 10 that you find then becomes relevant. This is really no different. To a BR type shooter hell bent to use a factory receiver this is kind of a big deal as that game is very, very equipment oriented. On a plate match gamer gun or hunting rig its going to be a lot tougher to realize. Still, most will opt for it just for peace of mind.
Peace of mind does matter in shooting. I doubt many sky divers jump unless they have a high degree of confidence in their equipment. This really isn't all that different.
I think until someone does a large scale test with a sample size big enough to subdue the "noise" we'll never really know what quantifiable effect blueprinting has. Here's my argument, though...
1) How many negative reviews have you seen about Criterion "Remage" barrels, or any flavor of Savage, Tikka, Ruger, etc. "match grade" (higher quality) pre-fit barrel? Whether they plug into a factory Savage, Remington, or Ruger receiver, the result is almost universal. I'm not bullshitting in saying I've never seen a bad review or someone saying they're having trouble getting them to shoot. The ONLY exception to that is a guy that was screwing a Remage into a trued receiver-- obviously this isn't the fault of the receiver, the truing, nor the barrel. Just an example of probably dangerously loose thread fit. The only way these barrels work is if the receiver threads haven't been touched, and I'd argue that most guys don't true the face or lugs. Consistently sub-1/2 MOA results are had, often better. Is that at Benchrest level? no, but then again I think most of those guys are shooting steel plates and animals and don't care to go through all the associated handloading voodoo/BS to get there, either.
2) How many "Blueprinted" receivers have you received that had the work done by another shop (and this isn't just you, I've seen it mentioned across the board on internet forums and in personal conversations) and you set it up in your fixture and dial it in to find that it's "0.0XXX out". Between changes in temperature, part flex, part movement, loose locking mechanisms in fixturing, the bushings seat differently, whatever... The work you do "as perfectly as you can" can be taken by someone else and shown to have some sort of run out-- often times I've read/heard of just as much or more than what is typically present in a factory receiver. Now regardless of who's work is closer to being "perfect", both your typical blueprinted receivers and the other shops' blueprinted receivers produce tiny groups... The same can be said about custom receivers. Some smiths say they don't always check out, but if someone buys a custom receiver and just screws in a barrel without ever checking, nearly universally, they all shoot tiny groups.
So like I said, until someone proves conclusively that a factory Remington action with everything else as equal as possible is guaranteed to shoot distinguishably worse than a blueprinted action, I'm set in my opinion, right or wrong. Also, I think once someone finds out WHY that happens, it would be able to be measured and corrected IF it needed it. I also think the person demanding benchrest precision out of a M700 is a rarity these days. I think there are just a handful of things that really matter, and the rest is peace of mind, theoretical improvement, and "we've always done it like that".
Everyone is scared of the what-if. "What if I have this new fancy barrel installed and mine is the one in #### that shoots like shit without blueprinting? Well, I might as well blueprint it anyway."
1) How many negative reviews have you seen about Criterion "Remage" barrels, or any flavor of Savage, Tikka, Ruger, etc. "match grade" (higher quality) pre-fit barrel? Whether they plug into a factory Savage, Remington, or Ruger receiver, the result is almost universal. I'm not bullshitting in saying I've never seen a bad review or someone saying they're having trouble getting them to shoot. The ONLY exception to that is a guy that was screwing a Remage into a trued receiver-- obviously this isn't the fault of the receiver, the truing, nor the barrel. Just an example of probably dangerously loose thread fit. The only way these barrels work is if the receiver threads haven't been touched, and I'd argue that most guys don't true the face or lugs. Consistently sub-1/2 MOA results are had, often better. Is that at Benchrest level? no, but then again I think most of those guys are shooting steel plates and animals and don't care to go through all the associated handloading voodoo/BS to get there, either.
2) How many "Blueprinted" receivers have you received that had the work done by another shop (and this isn't just you, I've seen it mentioned across the board on internet forums and in personal conversations) and you set it up in your fixture and dial it in to find that it's "0.0XXX out". Between changes in temperature, part flex, part movement, loose locking mechanisms in fixturing, the bushings seat differently, whatever... The work you do "as perfectly as you can" can be taken by someone else and shown to have some sort of run out-- often times I've read/heard of just as much or more than what is typically present in a factory receiver. Now regardless of who's work is closer to being "perfect", both your typical blueprinted receivers and the other shops' blueprinted receivers produce tiny groups... The same can be said about custom receivers. Some smiths say they don't always check out, but if someone buys a custom receiver and just screws in a barrel without ever checking, nearly universally, they all shoot tiny groups.
So like I said, until someone proves conclusively that a factory Remington action with everything else as equal as possible is guaranteed to shoot distinguishably worse than a blueprinted action, I'm set in my opinion, right or wrong. Also, I think once someone finds out WHY that happens, it would be able to be measured and corrected IF it needed it. I also think the person demanding benchrest precision out of a M700 is a rarity these days. I think there are just a handful of things that really matter, and the rest is peace of mind, theoretical improvement, and "we've always done it like that".
Everyone is scared of the what-if. "What if I have this new fancy barrel installed and mine is the one in #### that shoots like shit without blueprinting? Well, I might as well blueprint it anyway."
