Pegasus wrote: »
Actually you are wrong also. In fact, F-class rifles might be a place where you COULD get away with neck sizing for a bit, because they are tighter than factory rifles, but the precision of the action precludes you from wanting to do that.
That said, I will answer all your misconceptions, errors and fallacies in a separate thread that I will start shortly, I'm not derailing this thread any further than I already have.
tennmike wrote: »
Here's a parts list for F-Class rifles from a rifle team. I don't see any parts in their list of what they use that one would find on a factory mass produced rifle. I stand by what I said. You're comparing two things that only bear cosmetic appearances. They are, IN FACT, entirely different animals.
Axe wrote: »
Works well as a tooth pick! not so much for scratching the man bits though!
Pegasus wrote: »
I don't see a parts list and I don't care. Trust me when I say that I know more about F-class than you do, I don't need no stinking parts list.
Read my other thread that explains why you are wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Don't take it personally.
Linefinder wrote: »
I'm not a toolmaker, but I'm not far off. I can't quite build an injection mold from scratch, but I'm creeping up on it.
What I'm most curious about is how you have personally measured these inconsistencies of which you speak. And how can you say with any degree of certainty, how it affects downrange performance, considering the nut at the butt is at best slightly inconsistent.
I'm not sure I could even rig up a jig against a 1-2-3 block that would allow me to speak with the confidence you exude.
A machinist built your press. A machinist built your dies. A machinist built your barrel. A machinist built your action. A machinist built your scope and stock.
I do it for a living. And I still can't have the confidence you have in others that do it for you.