When is using a Prefit barrel the right option

[Willyb43]

Opinions are like what? Yup. You guessed it

Haha, sorry if I came across like an a-hole, perhaps my reply was a bit combative…

I think we agree on a lot, someone who is skilled and experienced at their craft with proper quality control is money well spent. You may or may not loose that in a higher production facility. I’ve had a one off prefit made for me, it was made to order, deposit to delivery was 9 weeks. I see no difference in quality in that product vs my local gunsmith chambered and fitted barrel who had my action in hand for 15 months before completion. However, my prefit wasn’t an off the shelf mass produced prefit, and I see a distinction there.

I just disagree with your sentiment about there being a difference between a gunsmith and a machinist for this type of work, it’s just a title. And your view of conventional machining superiority vs CNC machining, you can end up with identical products with either process, the difference has nothing to do with the quality of the end product and everything to do with efficiency and repeatability.

Skills are skills, this isn’t an opinion it’s a fact. A lack of skill or quality control from any person or business isn’t the result of professional title or a production process.

For what it’s worth I have no skin in the game, I don’t make barrels and my trade is not reproducible via computer numerical control.

 

[Article 4]

Haha, sorry if I came across like an a-hole, perhaps my reply was a bit combative…

I think we agree on a lot, someone who is skilled and experienced at their craft with proper quality control is money well spent. You may or may not loose that in a higher production facility. I’ve had a one off prefit made for me, it was made to order, deposit to delivery was 9 weeks. I see no difference in quality in that product vs my local gunsmith chambered and fitted barrel who had my action in hand for 15 months before completion. However, my prefit wasn’t an off the shelf mass produced prefit, and I see a distinction there.

I just disagree with your sentiment about there being a difference between a gunsmith and a machinist for this type of work, it’s just a title. And your view of conventional machining superiority vs CNC machining, you can end up with identical products with either process, the difference has nothing to do with the quality of the end product and everything to do with efficiency and repeatability.

Skills are skills, this isn’t an opinion it’s a fact. A lack of skill or quality control from any person or business isn’t the result of professional title or a production process.

For what it’s worth I have no skin in the game, I don’t make barrels and my trade is not reproducible via computer numerical control.

Hey, appreciate you rethinking and restating. It is easy for us to come across that way when we arent hearing voices and inflection. Being polite is always appreciated so if I came across, cross LOL, not really my intent.

IME, having worked with both Machinists and Gunsmiths, my thoughts are meant to say - each side knows tips and tricks the other does not. When it comes to the basics, they can both be great. So yea, I agree with you there for the most part.

When it comes to making a rifle, a chamber, and knowing the little idiosyncratic needs of a top tier, custom, match grade rifle build, ill take a very good gunsmith over a very good machinist every day.

 

[Willyb43]

Good lord, a machinist with no understanding of firearms has no chance whatsoever of achieving the same level of quality of a good gunsmith. He can learn how to do it, but there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of experience.

A new construction plumber has no chance doing a good replumb on a complicated remodel. A cabinet maker with 20 years experience will struggle building cabinets on site. An experienced metal working CNC programmer hired to machine stair parts with a CNC router asked me how to troubleshoot the cutting of wood. The list goes on and on in every profession.

I wouldn’t let a machinist touch a rifle, or he will scratch the crap out of the receiver just unscrewing the barrel, if he doesn’t tweak it. Lol

Sorry, for clarification I’m referring to the quality of a prefit barrel. I’m not talking about dropping your riffle off at your local machine shop who specializes in on-site line boring to have work done to it.
Prefits are a part built to a spec. A machinist in a facility setup to build prefit barrels is 100% able to replicate the same part as a gunsmith in the same facility. Skills and tooling being equal, professional title has no bearing on the quality of the part you receive. There are plenty of hacks in my trade, they can call themselves whatever they want, they are still pretty lousy at their job.

 

[Article 4]

Sorry, for clarification I’m referring to the quality of a prefit barrel. I’m not talking about dropping your riffle off at your local machine shop who specializes in on-site line boring to have work done to it.
Prefits are a part built to a spec. A machinist in a facility setup to build prefit barrels is 100% able to replicate the same part as a gunsmith in the same facility. Skills and tooling being equal, professional title has no bearing on the quality of the part you receive. There are plenty of hacks in my trade, they can call themselves whatever they want, they are still pretty lousy at their job.

I hear you, its one of the biggest contentions with prefits. Its not that a person cannot be trained to run a machine or that someone can put out a great part. However, I hope you will agree, that without verifying the part that is mating to the other part (barrel to action) there is no way to ensure final fitment is within specs. Especially with older and well used actions...

Yes, the actions and barrels are "supposed" to be that spec, and usually are, but does someone (john doe rifle owner) who does not have the ability to know or the ability to quality inspect either? Then is John Doe the person you want mating the parts? Everyone makes manufacturing errors, what do you do if it doesnt shoot? Or, maybe it does - then the prefit is great and run it!!

The value of the gunsmith comes in making the parts specifically to mate, and ensuring the complete process, the mating of the parts and the final result are all within their build spec. No assumptions, no hoping it works - there is value in knowing it works

 

[JeffRaines]

I know of not a single benchrest shooter, the guys that are interested in sub 1/4 MOA accuracy, use pre fits. That in itself is important for anyone trying to build the absolute most accurate rifle they can.

1. Most hunters are not competent enough shooters(myself included) to shoot sub 1/4, much less in a hunting weight gun. I'll bet most bench rest guys can't do it consistently in a hunting weight gun.

2. You don't need a 1/4 MOA gun to kill animals. 1 MOA at 1000 yards is 10".... well within the kill zone of deer, elk and bear.

3. Also to note, the cost difference between a prefit and custom chambered barrel is usually 300-500 depending on who's doing the work. Money better spent on tags and hunts.

What I've seen is that people tend to worry far too much about things that are going to make little, if any, difference when it comes to actually hunting. If you can't shoot well enough to shoot 1/4 MOA in the first place(and let's be real, most people cannot) what difference is it going to make when it comes to actually having a barrel that's capable? You have guys spending money hand over fist chasing accuracy when they already have a rifle that's more than capable of doing the job at the distances they hunt. Most would be better off spending that money on actual hunts.

Its the same thing I see with archery guys... there are dudes that will buy the new flagship bow every year, then turn around and complain about how expensive hunting has gotten and how its turning into a rich mans sport. My 3 year old bow still shoots the same as it did when I bought it, and in another 5 years I guarantee its still going to shoot the same.

 

[Willyb43]

I do agree. That is part of the process you choose to assume on yourself if you buy a prefit. For me those services aren’t worth the extra 13 month wait on a rebarrel. I’m also worse at shooting than any of my rifles are, so money spent on extra precision has diminishing returns.

Some people have the skills and tooling necessary to assemble and measure machined parts, some people don’t.

Personally, these aren’t issues for me. YMMV.

 

[JohnJohnson]

If you mainly use one rifle, it's better to have a 1/2 MOA barrel + 6-12 months to practice rather than a 1/4 MOA barrel that took your gun out of commission for 6-12 months.

 

[Article 4]

1. Most hunters are not competent enough shooters(myself included) to shoot sub 1/4, much less in a hunting weight gun. I'll bet most bench rest guys can't do it consistently in a hunting weight gun.

2. You don't need a 1/4 MOA gun to kill animals. 1 MOA at 1000 yards is 10".... well within the kill zone of deer, elk and bear.

3. Also to note, the cost difference between a prefit and custom chambered barrel is usually 300-500 depending on who's doing the work. Money better spent on tags and hunts.

What I've seen is that people tend to worry far too much about things that are going to make little, if any, difference when it comes to actually hunting. If you can't shoot well enough to shoot 1/4 MOA in the first place(and let's be real, most people cannot) what difference is it going to make when it comes to actually having a barrel that's capable? You have guys spending money hand over fist chasing accuracy when they already have a rifle that's more than capable of doing the job at the distances they hunt. Most would be better off spending that money on actual hunts.

Its the same thing I see with archery guys... there are dudes that will buy the new flagship bow every year, then turn around and complain about how expensive hunting has gotten and how its turning into a rich mans sport. My 3 year old bow still shoots the same as it did when I bought it, and in another 5 years I guarantee its still going to shoot the same.

Yeah maybe if the goal is 1 moa, you have a point. In ideal conditions that would be 10” at 1000. But can that same hunter hold to that with their wind call, conditions etc? 10” at 1000 for someone like that usually tends to be 14-18-20 inches…way outside kill zone

10 months seems like a long time to get in line but maybe it happens more than I think.

I’ll say one more time. How many of us realize a month before season, I need a barrel?!?!

Good thing everyone here shoots sub 1/2 though

 

[JeffRaines]

Yeah maybe if the goal is 1 moa, you have a point. In ideal conditions that would be 10” at 1000. But can that same hunter hold to that with their wind call, conditions etc? 10” at 1000 for someone like that usually tends to be 14-18-20 inches…way outside kill zone

In those same conditions that same hunter is still going to have the same wind issues. The barrel isn’t going to magically make them a better shooter than they are.

If you’re a 1.5 MOA shooter and you have a 1/4 MOA barrel… you’re still a 1.5 MOA shooter.

 

[HingleMcCringleberry]

Good thing everyone here shoots sub 1/2 though

I have no idea if anyone in this thread has made that claim however people obsess over group size. Why? Probably ego, I guess.

As long as you can put 10rds into a 1.5 dot, just go shoot.

I'd rather go with a prefit than deal with a gunsmith.

 

[Article 4]

I have no idea if anyone in this thread has made that claim however people obsess over group size. Why? Probably ego, I guess.

As long as you can put 10rds into a 1.5 dot, just go shoot.

I'd rather go with a prefit than deal with a gunsmith.

It was rhetorical

Enjoy!

 

[Article 4]

In those same conditions that same hunter is still going to have the same wind issues. The barrel isn’t going to magically make them a better shooter than they are.

If you’re a 1.5 MOA shooter and you have a 1/4 MOA barrel… you’re still a 1.5 MOA shooter.

Yeah I like “it’s the Indian and not the arrow”.

But it sure is nice to have a better arrow!!

 

[ddowning]

1. Most hunters are not competent enough shooters(myself included) to shoot sub 1/4, much less in a hunting weight gun. I'll bet most bench rest guys can't do it consistently in a hunting weight gun.

2. You don't need a 1/4 MOA gun to kill animals. 1 MOA at 1000 yards is 10".... well within the kill zone of deer, elk and bear.

3. Also to note, the cost difference between a prefit and custom chambered barrel is usually 300-500 depending on who's doing the work. Money better spent on tags and hunts.

What I've seen is that people tend to worry far too much about things that are going to make little, if any, difference when it comes to actually hunting. If you can't shoot well enough to shoot 1/4 MOA in the first place(and let's be real, most people cannot) what difference is it going to make when it comes to actually having a barrel that's capable? You have guys spending money hand over fist chasing accuracy when they already have a rifle that's more than capable of doing the job at the distances they hunt. Most would be better off spending that money on actual hunts.

Its the same thing I see with archery guys... there are dudes that will buy the new flagship bow every year, then turn around and complain about how expensive hunting has gotten and how its turning into a rich mans sport. My 3 year old bow still shoots the same as it did when I bought it, and in another 5 years I guarantee its still going to shoot the same.

I'm still hunting with bowtech's flagship bow from '02. If you can shoot, in real life, not on the internet, it does make a difference to have a more precise gun on small targets. On elk and deer it really isn't a big deal until the range gets ridiculous.

The real problem is that, in reality, a sub 1/4 minute gun is actually a half minute gun. They are rare as hell and most are chambered in something where the case started as a 6 br or 220 Russian. A half minute gun is actually a 1 minute gun which makes it pretty useful, even for long range on deer and elk. A 1 minute gun is actually a 1.5-2 minute gun. Still useful, but not a 1 minute gun like people think. This is because people measure small sample size groups. If you shoot 100, 3 shot groups and the average is 1/2 moa, but the largest is 1.5 moa, you can only guarantee that your gun will hit a 1.5 moa target. That is if the scope is perfectly zeroed, the distance is correct, and the wind call is perfect. It's a little bit sobering to discover the realization.

Guys that only own crazy accurate custom guns will claim that group size doesn't change much when you add shots to the group. The more precise the rifle system, the more true it is.

You are correct. Most people have a good enough gun and should work on themselves before worrying about the precision of the rifle. This is especially true when we are talking about hunting big game.

 

[TaperPin]

Sorry, for clarification I’m referring to the quality of a prefit barrel. I’m not talking about dropping your riffle off at your local machine shop who specializes in on-site line boring to have work done to it.
Prefits are a part built to a spec. A machinist in a facility setup to build prefit barrels is 100% able to replicate the same part as a gunsmith in the same facility. Skills and tooling being equal, professional title has no bearing on the quality of the part you receive. There are plenty of hacks in my trade, they can call themselves whatever they want, they are still pretty lousy at their job.

I still disagree, not based on my opinion, but on the number of machine shops that have attempted and failed to produce sub contracted firearm parts to an acceptable standard. History is full of examples - the Forgotten Weapons YouTube has talked at great length about it with specific examples.

Ruger used to subcontract out rifle barrels, and the accuracy of older Rugers was hit or miss for decades until they started producing their own. At some point the cost of dealing with contracting, testing, and rejecting outsourced barrels outweighed the benefit. I’ve owned two Rugers from the 70s and 80s that were horrible and my main hunting partner had a heavy barreled m77 that also shot like a lever gun.

Many machine shops do thread and chamber prefits for others, but there was a learning curve and just keeping an ear to the wall in forum machinist discussions, not every shop is successful at it, often saying, “The hassle wasn’t profitable for us.” That sounds a lot like the number of rejected barrels was enough to cut into profit and they couldn’t find a way around it.

 

[Willyb43]

I still disagree, not based on my opinion, but on the number of machine shops that have attempted and failed to produce sub contracted firearm parts to an acceptable standard. History is full of examples - the Forgotten Weapons YouTube has talked at great length about it with specific examples.

Ruger used to subcontract out rifle barrels, and the accuracy of older Rugers was hit or miss for decades until they started producing their own. At some point the cost of dealing with contracting, testing, and rejecting outsourced barrels outweighed the benefit. I’ve owned two Rugers from the 70s and 80s that were horrible and my main hunting partner had a heavy barreled m77 that also shot like a lever gun.

Many machine shops do thread and chamber prefits for others, but there was a learning curve and just keeping an ear to the wall in forum machinist discussions, not every shop is successful at it, often saying, “The hassle wasn’t profitable for us.” That sounds a lot like the number of rejected barrels was enough to cut into profit and they couldn’t find a way around it.

The number of machine shops that fail to produce parts to acceptable standards for any industry is a topic worth discussing.

Your referencing volume based manufacturing, profitability, and subcontracted barrels for large firearms companies. Those are all kind of related subjects but not at all addressing why you disagree with my argument that vocational skill trumps job title.

I’m talking about a competent person, who is vocationally trained having the ability to chamber, shoulder, thread and crown a prefit barrel from a reputable barrel blank.

Explain, what voodoo they lack to perform the task?

Specifically, why is the gunsmith capable of making that part “better”?

 

[Harvey_NW]

Good thing everyone here shoots sub 1/2 though

Bold claim, best to post up proof. For science and stuff.

 

[TaperPin]

The number of machine shops that fail to produce parts to acceptable standards for any industry is a topic worth discussing.

Your referencing volume based manufacturing, profitability, and subcontracted barrels for large firearms companies. Those are all kind of related subjects but not at all addressing why you disagree with my argument that vocational skill trumps job title.

I’m talking about a competent person, who is vocationally trained having the ability to chamber, shoulder, thread and crown a prefit barrel from a reputable barrel blank.

Explain, what voodoo they lack to perform the task?

Specifically, why is the gunsmith capable of making that part “better”?

Machinists are trained to be efficient and use the quickest method to accomplish a task, and part of making a plan to machine a part includes an understanding of the material, the drawn plans, what’s not on the plans, the end user, what will be tested and what tooling is available. A set of blueprints is not going to list a tutorial on barrel manufacture practices, or discussion of the potential pitfalls of testing chamber dimensions.

Barrels are line bored after profiling the exterior and the bore is never exactly in the middle - that’s assumed common knowledge for gunsmiths.

Every year I see a professional journeyman machinists show his after hours project on a forum and the barrel is set up in a standard three jaw chuck for threading and chambering, oblivious that he’s setting himself up for trouble. That’s where egg shaped chambers are born. Of course others that know better point it out, and a half cooked excuse is made that he checked concentricity, or that it doesn’t matter because the reamer holder will float enough to make up for it - that works until it doesn’t.

I’ve seen QA setups for checking tapered holes with an internal shoulder and it might have one go/no go for outermost part of the taper, another for upper part next to the shoulder - that’s in addition to regular headspace, neck, and throat depth. Guess what happens when someone doesn’t clean all the chips off the reamer and leaves a ring in the chamber between the shoulder and base - the knowledgeable machinist without gun experience knows the taper QA check indexes at the top of the taper and another at the bottom, and the SAAMI spec allows .002” over nominal. He polishes out the ring, blends it in, and nobody knows until fired cases stick. A simpler single go/no go taper check will miss oversized ends. I doubt most barrels are even checked, let alone checked that closely.

I don’t claim to know much about CNC chambering and have not paid attention to those discussions, but there are many threads between those in the business and experienced machinists trying to get their technique and setup figured out.

Journeymen machinists are great at getting jobs done and being efficient - 20 years experience doesn’t prepare them to know what they don’t know, and what shortcuts work and which don’t in this specialized situation. Once they learn what is the common body of knowledge of gunsmith barrel threading/chambering they will be every bit as successful as someone who started out a gunsmith, but not all of it is intuitive.

A relative is a top pastry chef, and she chuckles when a sous-chef thinks something should be easy, jumps in to help and falls on his face. Lol

 

[Article 4]

Bold claim, best to post up proof. For science and stuff.

It was meant as rhetorical rather than scientific - but maybe that in itself is rhetorical

 

[Reburn]

It was meant as rhetorical rather than scientific - but maybe that in itself is rhetorical

You're not using that word correctly. rhetorical. Nice try though but incorrect application.

 

[Article 4]

You're not using that word correctly. rhetorical. Nice try though but incorrect application.

If you cannot find your stick, I think I know where it is