Shooters Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
"Bad Joke Friday" Dan (moderator emeritus)
Joined
·
7,764 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have noted gunsmith recommendations for Taylor Throating (along with crown/forcing cone correction) for improved accuracy.  It's my understanding this addresses the problem of a constriction where the barrel is screwed in to the frame. I also note that Mr. Stanton's excellent "Technical Guide" illustrates significant accuracy improvement from fire lapping, which apparently addresses the same potential constriction -- as well as other enhancements.

Any comments on "biggest bang for your dollar" between the two processes, or is this an "apples/oranges" comparison?

Respectfully,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Taylor throating (or just about any recutting of the forcing cone while the barrel is under tension) will remove the constriction.

Lapping is more to make the bore more uniform along the whole length of the barrel.

Taylor throating also allows for a compensation of the minute alignment inaccuaracies of revolvers that don't have the advantage of being linebored. You can witness the success of this with a Dan Wesson( though the tensioned barrel helps alot too). You will have a hard time outshooting one even with a FA .( Even though the FA  locks up almost into a solid mass and has much tighter tolerances and alignment - and 3deg forcing cone to boot)


I personally would lap the barrel then have the forcing cone recut with a Taylor throating. They aren't mutually exclusive entities. Since fire lapping causes the forcing cone to degrade a little, you'd want to do it first. That was you will end up with a nice new shiny forcingcone.

(BTW, since haven't located the info. Trying to remember the best source. Finding it will be even more fun <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://beartoothbullets.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo--> )

-CAL

(Edited by CAL at 4:59 pm on June 4, 2001)
 

·
"Bad Joke Friday" Dan (moderator emeritus)
Joined
·
7,764 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Cal,

Sounds logical to me, thanks for the help.  I've not lapped any revolvers, but have several with crown/forcing cone/taylor throating rework. The results illustrated in Mr. Stanton's Tech. Guide for fire lapping were rather dynamic.  My Blackhawks/Redhawks do a good job of standing up to my shooting, but aren't always as accurate as I'd like.

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->.  My Blackhawks/Redhawks do a good job of standing up to my shooting, but aren't always as accurate as I'd like. [/quote]

<!--emo&:)--><img src="http://beartoothbullets.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->
I lost that excuse when I started getting PC S&Ws, DanWessons (and most recently, FA- which btw is taken a liking to the 395grs bullets)

-CAL
 

·
"Bad Joke Friday" Dan (moderator emeritus)
Joined
·
7,764 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Cal,

I assume the 395gr is .454?  What load have you worked up?

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
So far did 25gr H110  today at around 1350 in the 6inch FA.

I have a grain and a half to go if projections are right. Not that I need any more, since I'm in the testing mood what the heck!

Since there is no telling what the pressure is (sims are giving me around 50kpsi for the load I've tested but that is a shot in the dark without a strain gauge)

I know of 420s in the 1420fps so I feel I safe but still taking it slow.

I will probably have the mold cut for me.

I don't think I'd try past 23gr in the Taurus unless I had proof of pressures (around 1200fps, the notes are out of reach). Given the starting load of 18gr (900fps),  its been a journey <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://beartoothbullets.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->

-CAL
 

·
"Bad Joke Friday" Dan (moderator emeritus)
Joined
·
7,764 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Cal,

A number of postings have referenced that one of the "problems" with the FA's is they are so well built that you don't see the normal warning signs of pressure. How do you, other than "I know of someone else that has done it" methology, know when you've maxed out?  Also, I would have assumed the Chrony alerts you to the flattening of velocity increases, but the results I see posted for the FA's almost seems to suggest the velocity isn't affected in the same way other revolvers are?

I would also assume you have a name for this gun, something like the "Missouri" or "Iowa"?

Dan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
DOK, I don't know if you'd see pressure warning signs in the Taurus either.  I read a posting somewhere in the shooter's forum where someone from Ruger was talking about the 454 or 480. They were being questioned about 6-shot cylinders and the ability to withstand higher pressures.  The Ruger rep said that guns in this country are required to withstand 150% of SAAMI specs (maybe James Gates knows something about this).  That means that Taurus, Ruger or anyone has to meet those requirements.  If that's true, I don't think it matters if the FA is 175% or even 200% stronger as long as reloaders stay within powder manufacturer's recommended min and max specs.  I think pressure signs are going to be difficult to detect and can depend on your components, too.  Magnum primers are stronger and so primer cup deformation is not a good indication of pressure (you may never see it). Also, 454 brass, say from a company like Starline, is much less likely to show bulging than brass from other manufacturer's.  Tight cylinder tolerances would be another factor (the brass can't expand if it has no where to go).  I think that one is more likely to blow up their gun (and maybe parts of themselves) before seeing recognizable pressures signs in these guns.  I just picked up our Taurus RB in 454.  I measured the barrel-to-cylinder gap, a very snug .0015, the same for all chambers. The cylinder face has to be precisely trued for those tight tolerances. Bowen Arms only adjusts DA's to .004 to .005.  That says a lot about Taurus quality.  Greybeardoutdoors has some articles on 454 ammo from different mfgs tested in an FA and RB. He got 2-2.5" @ 50 yds, less than twice that at 100 yds, with iron sights from both guns.  I don't know if anyone could get enough bang-for-the-buck accuracy improvement by having custom work done on a new RB.  I would try the fire-lapping, then 4000-5000 rounds later, the Taylor throating... but only if accuracy started to drop off.  Another thing that might be worth while is to slug the throats.  Alpha Precision states "Ideally, the cylinder throat will be .0005 to.0010" larger than the bullet" when shooting cast bullets.  The only problem here is: if you have to have the throats reamed or honed to the largest throat diameter, you may have to start casting your own bullets to get a proper fit.  Before you go that route, try H100 and Winchester SR or Remmington 7 1/2 magnum primers (the ones recommend by Freedom Arms).  FA says this about the use of magnum primers" "More importantly the heavier construction of the primer cup prevents metal flow back, and provides a more positive ignition".  That's what I intend to try, anyway.  SORRY... I got a little long winded.  Time to go catch my breath (wherever I left it).

God bless,
 

·
"Bad Joke Friday" Dan (moderator emeritus)
Joined
·
7,764 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Hey, good stuff Southpaw and pleased to see you got you new Taurus.  I noted that you referenced relatively tight tolerance between barrel and cylinder.  It will be interesting to see if you had the same initial problem I had -- after about 6/10 shots, the residue caused the cylinder to require my assistance to revolve. But as I said in an earlier post, that problem went away. I have previously tried the Rem Benchrest primers and they seems to work well, but have to look up the 7 1/2 mag. primers if that's what FA recommended -- I thought they recommended WSR.

One of the frequent issues I run into (maybe ignorance on my part) is that the larger cast bullets don't have data available from powder manuf. for max loads.  It seems to me that sites such as this are the primary source of that data? And that data is frequently from revolvers that don't demonstrate the normal signs of pressure?

Enjoy the new Taurus and let us know your results.

Dan
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top