MetalworkingFun Forum

Yep, does look nice  
 
DaveH

(01-22-2015, 04:42 PM)EdK Wrote: [ -> ]Its been worth all the effort David. It looks real good.  

Ed

Ed
There's still a ways to go, all the metal bits have to be finished either by bluing or the color case hardening process. The wood still needs a couple more layers of Tung Oil (which is what I've been using) to fill up the grain in the walnut.


I also still have to glass bed the Butt Stock into the action, but the Acraglas kit I purchased seems to be really old with the two parts al most too hard to mix and real hard to squeeze out, instead of having a consistency of butter for the gel kit that I ordered.

DA

  

Dave, that sure looks lovely. I thought I saw something about you checkering something? I just wanted to say I don't think
you can improve it and I'd sure hate to bugger it up.

Steve

(01-22-2015, 07:12 PM)stevec Wrote: [ -> ]Dave, that sure looks lovely. I thought I saw something about you checkering something? I just wanted to say I don't think
you can improve it and I'd sure hate to bugger it up.

Steve

Steve,

its the buggering it up part is the reason I haven't started in with the checkering tools yet. and yes its starting to look pretty good just need to put on a couple more coats of the finish to get the wood grain filled in, then it will look really good up close.

But with the weight it needs the checkering to keep it from sliding around in the mitts you know.

DA 

(01-22-2015, 05:03 PM)DaveH Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, does look nice  
 
DaveH

Thanks Dave, having other people say it looks good makes building it worth doing to me.

DA

Spent no more than a 1/2 hour in the shop today, not feeling well. Might be coming down with the flu that hit my wife for two & half days.

I made this nut for a shop that has an obsolete Valenite Rigidex boring bar, an early version of a De-Vibar. The nut is no longer available, so I got the print from the manufacturer (I have connections in engineering.) It's why I bought the 12" length of pre heat treated Ø 1" 4140.

See if you can spot what I consider to be a conflict on the print, and why I didn't make it to their spec.

My guess is the tap drill called out is too large.

Ed

We have a winner!

Yup, I went with a Ø 0.332" (Letter Q) drill. I did have a GH3 class tap to use, though not my preference in style as it was a high quality HSS 4-flute hand tap.

I used to beat on engineers for putting tap drill size on a print at all. Just give the thread you want and let the machinist determine the right tools to do it with. I sent an e-mail back to the engineer who sent me the print, pointing out that if you actually use the drill specified, your resulting thread does NOT meet the spec for a Class 3 thread with the minor diameter being too large.

By the way Ken, nice depth of field in that picture.

Ed

(01-25-2015, 06:28 PM)EdK Wrote: [ -> ]By the way Ken, nice depth of field in that picture.  

Ed

Or lack thereof.

My usual Canon SD800iS point & shoot camera is in my daughter's hands, using it for selling off some junk at my mom's home so we can put in a second bathroom that house has long needed.

I used my old Nikon D200 digital SLR with the Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8 macro lens. With the larger imaging chip and longer focal length lens, you get that. Exposure was 1/80trh sec @ f4.5 with ISO set to 800 in high res JPEG mode. Anything less it would be a blur, as my tripod is at the shop and I shot it at home.

Newer DSLR's can shoot at much higher ISO ratings without noise, and would be capable of greater depth of field from a smaller f-stop at the same shutter speed.

I need to start using that thing more, and perhaps upgrade to a newer camera body that can take HD video.