# Dirt Cheap Automatic Tailstock Feed for Your Metal Lathe



## YYCHM (Jan 18, 2021)

What a neat idea!!!

https://www.homemadetools.net/forum..._content=01-18-21-173473&fi=173473#post173473


----------



## Tom Kitta (Jan 18, 2021)

I am on the spider idea so far - just something to hold the bar at the other end of the spindle to prevent whiplash - something like this:


----------



## YYCHM (Jan 18, 2021)

Tom Kitta said:


> I am on the spider idea so far - just something to hold the bar at the other end of the spindle to prevent whiplash



Ya...… I don't think a spider would have prevented that.


----------



## Dabbler (Jan 18, 2021)

ABOM79 made a steady rest that bolted to his big universal mill that steadied the stock about 36" from the back of the headstock.  Your better choice is to use a spider and trim your material so that no more than 6" sticks out from the spider.

Accidents like that are tragic, preventable and unnecessary.


----------



## Brent H (Jan 18, 2021)

That could get you into trouble really fast.  It’s a manual lathe - advancing the tailstock is a PITA ??


----------



## YYCHM (Jan 18, 2021)

Brent H said:


> That could get you into trouble really fast.  It’s a manual lathe - advancing the tailstock is a PITA ??



OK..... I just thought it was clever.


----------



## Brent H (Jan 18, 2021)

> OK..... I just thought it was clever


 - indeed, but here is my rub with it - your drilling through something - small lathe max 3-4”.  You need to seriously set up to do this automatically?    Realistically you can only drill  4” deep amd it’s drilling, - other reasons to advance the tailstock?
Maybe a bit of a “rant” but how lazy are we these days that 3” or drill travel cannot  be done by hand?


----------



## YYCHM (Jan 18, 2021)

I thought it might be useful for tapping?

Ya,  I get myself in more trouble drilling on my lathe than anything else.  If the taper isn't spinning, the drill bit is, or you get a stall and a stuck drill bit


----------



## John Conroy (Jan 18, 2021)

I think if you tried forcing a drill using the lead screw only bad thing would happen unless you got the feed rate perfect for the drill size and material. I'll stick to feeding the drill by hand where I can feel what's happening


----------



## Tom Kitta (Jan 18, 2021)

John Conroy said:


> I think if you tried forcing a drill using the lead screw only bad thing would happen unless you got the feed rate perfect for the drill size and material. I'll stick to feeding the drill by hand where I can feel what's happening



There is a safety pin in the lead screw - or should be - in case something is about to break. 

People drill from the carriage sometimes but the feed is set not for threading but for RPM - say feed of 0.003 - same as on a drilling machine or mill. I never needed to do so - its mostly for "hard drilling" on sturdy machines with lots of HP - AFAIK - the reason is it takes time to setup right & unless you are doing production or heavy drilling tail-stock is more convenient. Yes some people "mark" things for quick setup. Maybe I am wrong and some drill of carriage on mini lathe & find it quick.


----------



## DPittman (Jan 19, 2021)

Tom Kitta said:


> I am on the spider idea so far - just something to hold the bar at the other end of the spindle to prevent whiplash - something like this:


Why the heck don't people turn off that machine instead of standing around watching it self destruction?


----------



## historicalarms (Jan 19, 2021)

One time I  had a 30" rifle barrel that i wanted to drill out to install a new rifled barrel insert, a common gunsmith job. They all use hand drills to do the job ... but, me being a farmer thought hell there has to be a better way. I rigged up a simple catch-hook that would catch the front of the cross slide and clamped to the tailstock, when the powerfeed was engaged the tailstock was just dragged along at the same rate...worked wonderfully for the first 15  inches of drilling.
     This barrel (1890's vintage steel) already had a .375 (38-55) hole in it and I had to increase to .625....should be a simple drill operation shouldn't it!  Just drill an inch or so, unhook and pull out to clean the flutes and run in, hook up again for another inch...It was until the mid part of the job...that drill bit jammed up and broke off with 2/3rd of the flutes stuck in the barrel. With that damn bit chucked to the tailstock, I couldnt feel the drag increase the way I would have had I been using the tried& true way of using a hand drill.
   That little operation in "knowledge gain "cost me several hundred dollars to (and very lucky to do so) find a comparable vintage barrel to replace the buggered one.


----------



## DPittman (Jan 19, 2021)

historicalarms said:


> One time I  had a 30" rifle barrel that i wanted to drill out to install a new rifled barrel insert, a common gunsmith job. They all use hand drills to do the job ... but, me being a farmer thought hell there has to be a better way. I rigged up a simple catch-hook that would catch the front of the cross slide and clamped to the tailstock, when the powerfeed was engaged the tailstock was just dragged along at the same rate...worked wonderfully for the first 15  inches of drilling.
> This barrel (1890's vintage steel) already had a .375 (38-55) hole in it and I had to increase to .625....should be a simple drill operation shouldn't it!  Just drill an inch or so, unhook and pull out to clean the flutes and run in, hook up again for another inch...It was until the mid part of the job...that drill bit jammed up and broke off with 2/3rd of the flutes stuck in the barrel. With that damn bit chucked to the tailstock, I couldnt feel the drag increase the way I would have had I been using the tried& true way of using a hand drill.
> That little operation in "knowledge gain "cost me several hundred dollars to (and very lucky to do so) find a comparable vintage barrel to replace the buggered one.


Oh ouch.  That sounds like the type of learning I do.


----------



## PeterT (Jan 19, 2021)

historicalarms said:


> One time I  had a 30" rifle barrel that i wanted to drill out to install a new rifled barrel insert, a common gunsmith job. They all use hand drills to do the job ...... I couldnt feel the drag increase the way I would have had I been using the tried& true way of using a hand drill.



I don't understand what you mean by hand drill. You mean feeding the tail stock quill in by hand? (turning the wheel).


----------



## YYCHM (Jan 19, 2021)

PeterT said:


> I don't understand what you mean by hand drill. You mean feeding the tail stock quill in by hand? (turning the wheel).



Ya, I'm not quite following this either.   Drilling through 30" with a hand drill?  What does the bit look like?


----------



## Dabbler (Jan 20, 2021)

Gunsmiths that do this for pay tend to use a piloted drill using a typical hand-held drill.  I think that way is very unprofessional. 

--They should use a  piloted gun drill with pressure coolant on a lathe, hand fed by the carriage.  A gun drill of this type type of drill will properly follow the bore, and leave a very consitent and accurate result.


----------



## historicalarms (Jan 20, 2021)

PeterT said:


> I don't understand what you mean by hand drill. You mean feeding the tail stock quill in by hand? (turning the wheel).


  Just an ordinary "plug er inta the wall" hand drill.


----------



## historicalarms (Jan 20, 2021)

YYCHobbyMachinist said:


> Ya, I'm not quite following this either.   Drilling through 30" with a hand drill?  What does the bit look like?



    There are two methods regularly used.  Either an extended length drill long enough to drill half way from either end of a barrel (Brownells supply them) or as in my case, I center drilled the drill bit shank and cut a spud onto the end of a long 1/2" round bar (long enough to drill completely through from one end) and welded them together. The spud is to assure that the bar is centered to the axis of the bit...That part of the equation worked alright...Where I went wrong was that I didn't have the means to properly grind a short pilot to the front of the  bit. Without a pilot , the bit flutes  probably started to load pressure on one side or another until the bit started to track off-center, eventually breaking.


----------



## historicalarms (Jan 20, 2021)

Dabbler said:


> Gunsmiths that do this for pay tend to use a piloted drill using a typical hand-held drill.  I think that way is very unprofessional.
> 
> --They should use a  piloted gun drill with pressure coolant on a lathe, hand fed by the carriage.  A gun drill of this type type of drill will properly follow the bore, and leave a very consitent and accurate result.



     First time I have ever had reason to question on of your post's...and with humble respect to your vastly more experience in the trade....
     I don't know how a "gun drill" can work on something with an already established bore.  The gun drill geometry requires a solid face to drill into for two reasons. The first is that the cutting lip is cut so that a "centering dimple" is constant in front of the drill. The cutting edge rotates around this dimple and in essence is the pilot for the gun drill all the way through the drilling sequence. This geometry also directs the cut filings down the long groove cut into the bit shank (deep hole drills have no spiral flutes, just a long V straight shaped groove).
    The second reason that a solid face to the front of the drill is required is that it is required for the massive pressures required to push the filings down that straight channel for the full length of the drill, however long that might be (longest I have seen is 48").  Recommended pressures I have researched from gun drill manuf. are always in the 6-800 psi range. I suppose that 800 psi would also push the filings out through the already established bore if they were allowed to get to the bore but again, the geometry of the cutting lip is designed to direct the cuttings into the groove. Without the pressure buildup needed I think a gun drill would load up with cuttings the same way my spiral bit did. Reaming chips are always pushed out ahead of the reamer by fluid directed down between the reamer shank & bore wall ( 300 psi recommended). 

     Building a gun drill from scratch was the main reason i got into this hobby in the first place and I did collect most everything I would need to do so but life & family obligations got in the way...

    The barrel maker i referenced before in this thread started boring his custom 30" barrels on a 60" bed lathe with an old automotive power steering pump for a cutting fluid delivery system ( they are rated at 1200psi or so) and a hand full of different sized gun drills. His rifling machine was an old lathe bed with the carriage removed and a hand operated "slide" riding on the ways. All this in an old 10 x 14 1940's grainery on his farm.  He has since added a "purpose built" front shop to house his store-bought deep hole drill. i have never seen it working but Ron claimed it would drill a 20 ft joint of bar from one end to the other. Like I said, I never seen it working but have seen 20 ft joints of bar laying beside the bed of the thing.


----------



## Dabbler (Jan 20, 2021)

*You are 100% right about a normal gun drill being not appropriate.*  I said a _piloted _gun drill.  you make it custom for the bore - we used milling inserts and ran the gun drill at 30PSI for the solulable oil.  It is constructed much like a  single cutter boring bar, but with a pilot on the front, but of course hollow and meant to be presurized.

It wasn't just prejudice  that prompted the remark.  I helped Bert fix a job years ago that was badly botched by using a conventional plug-in hand drill, ground to a a built in pilot.  I'm sure it was similar to what is sold today by Brownells.  The problem was, due to a problem with the drill or operator error,  It didn't even follow the bore well,  it was out over 10 thou in two spots but I can't remember exactly how much.  As in your case we were salvaging a genuine valuable antique.  Our case was different than yours as our bore was now crooked, but Bert showed what he deemed the correct way using a similar tool.

- So our fix used different techniques to achieve the same result.  He brought to the table stuff he learned while in the Army and in doing deep hole drilling while working for Remmington Arms.  I respect his opinion on this and we successfully recovered the botched job by using a similar, but modified technique.


----------



## Swharfin' (Feb 1, 2021)

historicalarms said:


> One time I  had a 30" rifle barrel that i wanted to drill out to install a new rifled barrel insert, a common gunsmith job. They all use hand drills to do the job ... but, me being a farmer thought hell there has to be a better way. I rigged up a simple catch-hook that would catch the front of the cross slide and clamped to the tailstock, when the powerfeed was engaged the tailstock was just dragged along at the same rate...worked wonderfully for the first 15  inches of drilling.
> This barrel (1890's vintage steel) already had a .375 (38-55) hole in it and I had to increase to .625....should be a simple drill operation shouldn't it!  Just drill an inch or so, unhook and pull out to clean the flutes and run in, hook up again for another inch...It was until the mid part of the job...that drill bit jammed up and broke off with 2/3rd of the flutes stuck in the barrel. With that damn bit chucked to the tailstock, I couldnt feel the drag increase the way I would have had I been using the tried& true way of using a hand drill.
> That little operation in "knowledge gain "cost me several hundred dollars to (and very lucky to do so) find a comparable vintage barrel to replace the buggered one.


If you don't mind my asking where do you buy your barrel liners


----------



## historicalarms (Feb 2, 2021)

Since ITAR (International traffic in Arms Regulations) became a thing after 9-11, affordable barrel liners have become almost unobtainable up here. I used to get them from a shop in Kentucky that would ship them as "internal threaded pipe" but BATF slapped their PP, threatened them with a $250,000 fine....they lost interest in shipping to Canada. 
   There are a couple of barrel makers in Canada (Ron Smith, Torrington Ab.  Bob Jury Red Deer Ab.) that will make one but they are expensive. They make a barrel blank (1.25 dia) same as for any barrel and then cut it down to barrel liner O.D.  Because of the heat generated in the turning process, they all need to be stress relieved and because of the slim walls, some are accurate some aren't...like a box of chocolates you never know what your getting.


----------



## Swharfin' (Feb 2, 2021)

K.S.Arms in Edm. too. I Was seeking RF liners I'll have to whittle a donor I guess. i ran into a mdl 14 1/2 figured I'd hand it to a pal for his grandson. On a side note I ordered a dvd on bolt epoxying and lapping from Brownells which they cancelled but are sending the rest of the order because the State Dept. insisted on a $280 USD export permit for the dvd.


----------



## Swharfin' (Feb 3, 2021)

Gospel the $280usd is the application fee for them to consider it, but not a guaranteed export permit. You know I think it just spurs us on to find our own solutions I suppose i was only looking for "easy info" instead off doing my own R&D.


----------



## historicalarms (Feb 3, 2021)

Rim fire .22 are a snap to re-line...drill & securely epoxy the liner in so it wont "walk out" during use...but because of pressures involved, center fire is a completely different cat to scratch.
     Two reasons actually, pressure & heat generation. A .22 LR will typically only produce pressures under 12,000 psi ( .22 mag and the new 17's might be more but I have never researched them) .22 liners & epoxy will easily withstand those pressures even at the chamber,  and you would have to shoot hundreds of rounds in immediate succession to generate enough heat to soften the epoxy.

    Re-lining a center fire, even a BPCR requires a much more involved method or disappointment will surely be  involved. Chamber pressures for BP start at  18,000 psi and can reach up to 28,000 in the larger Buffalo cartridges, Smokeless powder loads can start at the 18,000 level as well but can easily reach 55,000. Quite simply you cannot simply drill to slip-in fit & epoxy a liner in at these pressures. These pressures, at firing will expand a slip fit liner to be a very tight fit and stay that way...you have a bulge in the chamber that the brass swells to,  and requires a ramrod to remove.
     Old barrels needing re-lined for center fire need to be drilled in two stages. The chamber area and 2 inches ahead of it absolutely needs to be drilled (preferably reamed) to a very tight "pound in friction fit" or your chamber will be ruined on the first round fired. The rest of the barrel can be drilled a "slip in friction fit & epoxied" for ease of liner install before the epoxy sets up.
   Make sure you order a liner in excess length of your barrel as the "pound in friction fitting" may damage a short piece of the liner. I leave about 4 inches longer (so about 8 inches in total to include chamber & throat) than needed sticking out of the bore end and use a piece of 4x4 hard wood block between the hammer (the biggest ball peen hammer you can find) and liner.
     Many a rifle that has lasted a lifetime for an ancestor will last another lifetime for a new family member.


----------



## Swharfin' (Feb 3, 2021)

All good stuff Thanks
that Stevens 14 1/2 doesn't have a centered bore in the barrel about 3/16" high at breech and center at muzzle as I don't doubt you know.
I've read that most rf liners are button rifled hmm  Do you think turning down a donor barrel and threading it 40tpi would be a good substitute to epoxy in?
I love BPCR 45-70 45 colt both paper patched smokeless hurts too much Ha   No such thing as a long colt just a short 45 s&w
My email is rjm055@hotmail.com if your so inclined


----------



## historicalarms (Feb 4, 2021)

ahh I  see says the blind man. I was thinking pump action 14 1/2 Remington which is a center fire (44 WCF I have held and shot).

   I have never held a Stevens 14 1/2 and am interested in your Off center comment. Is this how they used a center fire action/falling block for a rim fire cartridge. 
    Just a comment on off-set bores. It is very common for barrel blanks to come out of a gun drill with the bore very off-set from center at the drill exit end, actually is is very unusual for bores at both ends to be within 10 or 20 thou of center. I have seen barrel blanks from reputable Stateside manuf. delivered through Brownells with exit end more than .250 off-set. After center to center contouring, nobody knows how badly the barrel looked on their $5000 custom gun beforehand....they all shoot the same.


----------



## Swharfin' (Feb 4, 2021)

I'll Send some pic's as to the why of it   shrugging going on
it is a rolling blk just a pipsqueak it even takes down by a knurled thumb bolt thru the recvr. just right for a little guy to shoot with his Gramps


----------



## buckbrush (Jun 1, 2021)

Rim fire liners are made from tubing that is rifled. 5/16 tubing was what Redman used for their liners. I installed dozens of them years ago. The Parker Hale liners that Ron Smith used to use were a different diameter as I recall.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 16, 2021)

This thread has been a very interesting read for me. I'd like to add just a few comments.

As @historicalarms has said, barrels often end up drilled off center. Although I've never seen one that is 1/4" off - Holy Moses!!! Maybe it was before the barrel maker cut the barrel contour though. I've also never seen one that was straight. Not ONE! Every single one I've ever seen has had a bit of an arc to the axis. That's why I prefer to chamber through the headstock with a spider on both sides of the head to deliberately offset the back end and precision align the working end such that the axis of the end I'm working on (muzzle or chamber) is truly concentric to the spindle axis. Others may use other methods successfully, but mine works for me at competition worthy levels. 

As @Dabbler has said, all my chambering end work has been done with precision fit (+/- 0.0001 yes a tenth of a thou) bushings to guide the finish or roughing reamer or drill in the bore on the lands with a floating reamer holder. I let the Bushing establish the course. 

Although I absolutely love the creativity of the idea itself that was first pointed out by @YYCHM, I could never imagine doing any chamber work using that method. 

@Brent H posits that it's only 3", but for my chambering work, I take his point to the extreme. Depending on the steel and chamber size, I usually cut just 25 thou at a time at the slowest speed I have, then pull the reamer out, clean, relube, and repeat. I also always hold the reamer holder in my left hand while I rotate the tailstock quill advance so I can feel the reamer cutting and thereby have a good feel for what is happening in there. It's a lot of repetition and it's very slow going, but my results speak for themselves.

I really do want to thank @YYCHM for showing us the idea. I may never use it, but I am always fond of growing my Basket of Tricks and my how-to knowledge base.

I love this forum.


----------



## PeterT (Jun 16, 2021)

I'm late to the party. I get that the tool post in original link is kind of old school. But why drag the tailstock along for the ride? Isn't that what toolholder chucks are all about - drilling under carriage power?


----------



## PeterT (Jun 16, 2021)

Susquatch said:


> T.. all my chambering end work has been done with precision fit (+/- 0.0001 yes a tenth of a thou) bushings to guide the finish or roughing reamer or drill in the bore on the lands with a floating reamer holder. I let the Bushing establish the course.



Do you have a pic of this setup? I'm interested for ulterior motives.


----------



## RobinHood (Jun 16, 2021)

Randy Richards made one recently from repurposed Sikorsky Skycrane helicopter parts...


----------



## RobinHood (Jun 16, 2021)

PeterT said:


> But why drag the tailstock along for the ride?



I think a tailstock can handle way more torque than any tool post drill chuck.


----------



## PeterT (Jun 16, 2021)

Hmm.. YOUR lathe maybe LoL. I've often wondered about the teeny key/pin in my 14x40 TS. Is it more of a cheesy alignment device for the quill or is it intentionally small & intended to shear? The casting itself looks sufficiently robust but the key is the weakest link. I know that its hardened though so I'm not so certain its intended to shear. I got thinking about this because I want to make a longer shoe that fits better to the slot width. Seems like whenever I had a jam drill issue, the shank spins in MT socket... usually followed my cuss words.

So how do those guys drag the TS? Do they semi tighten the clamp so it cant lift? Now the powerfeed is seeing that drag force on top of drilling? My lathe has the Vee on one (opposite) side, so isn't chuck reaction force wanting to rotate TS - thus potentially lift it off the Vee? What am I missing?


----------



## Dabbler (Jun 17, 2021)

@PeterT You use a drag link with the quill locked, so theforce pushes through the locking device to the drill.  There should be no pressure on the key.  (my 12" has a 1" long key FYI)


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 17, 2021)

PeterT said:


> Do you have a pic of this setup? I'm interested for ulterior motives.



Unfortunately, no I don't. I have another shop project taking priority right now. Maybe I can jury rig something up later this week to take photos for you.

I assume you are wondering about the setup and not the reaming process. 

Basically, I made spiders for both ends of my lathe. Most will wonder why I made a spider on the business end when you could use a four jaw. The problem with a four jaw is that the bearing surface of a four jaw is too long and the jaws want to align the work on their axis. You do not want this. You want the bore to be absolutely perfectly aligned with the Spindle axis. Only a point contact allows this. I use round brass buttons on the spider bolts to protect the work and allow it to pivot. 

If you don't do this kind of work a lot, you could also wrap the work once with a copper wire to allow the work to pivot in a four jaw. That's what I did until I decided it was just easier to make a front spider. In fact, I ended up making a spider out of a dedicated backplate. 

The working end is centered using a long 10ths indicator positioned down inside the bore AT THE SAME LOCATION as the front spider. This ensures that the bore is centered, but not necessarily aligned axially. The bore is aligned axially to the Spindle bore using the rear spider to move the other end until the indicator does not move as it is moved in and out of the bore at a location OTHER THAN where the front spider is. The process is repeated over and over and over until the indicator DOES NOT MOVE AT ALL in any location deep or shallow. This is critical. Long indicator needles typically reduce the accuracy of the indicator by the ratio of the needle length. But it's easy to see a quarter of a tenth or even less on the dial. 

There are other ways to do this too such as using a ground fitted bushed indicator rod in the bore and measuring the rod wobble. I don't like this method because it depends too much on the fit of the rod. A better alternative is to mount a long indicator rod in the tail stock that can float in the bore. One can hang a weight on the rod so the wobble end always rests on the bottom of the bore, and then eliminate the wobble at all locations in the bore. 

I don't like the ground rod method because it depends too much on the perfection of the fit and grinding. The long floating rod works just fine because the fit and grinding don't need to be perfect. But I prefer the long indicator method simply because it's faster and easier. I have compared the long indicator and floating rod methods and didn't find a difference.

Let me know if that didn't paint a picture in your mind.


----------



## PeterT (Jun 17, 2021)

Ah the quill is locked of course, duh. Thanks Dabbler.


----------



## PeterT (Jun 17, 2021)

Susquatch I kind of get it but I’m missing the gripping part if conventional Chuck or collet is replaced by something else, the inboard bed side spider maybe? Then you indicate part on both sides of head stock? I don’t have any experience with the parts you are making so probably why I’m confused. No rush if it’s convenient one day snap a pic or scribble a sketch. I’m thinking forward to model engine cylinder liners like my radial where there are sequential machining ops & consistency is important.


----------



## RobinHood (Jun 17, 2021)

PeterT said:


> My lathe has the Vee on one (opposite) side, so isn't chuck reaction force wanting to rotate TS - thus potentially lift it off the Vee?



A drilling operation produces what is known as a “couple” as far as rotational forces on the TS. The rotational force has no moment arm w.r.t. the TS body; thus it does not have a tendency to lift it. The weight of the TS, how it sits on the flat and in the Vee is plenty strong enough to resist but the largest of forces. Sure, you can set the TS position lock to a slight drag as well. Improves the rigidity of the setup.

In the formula below, d would be the distance between forces F and F1 on the cutting edges of the of the drill.

From “Mechanics for Engineers”, Statics and Dynamics, 3rd Ed, pg 66





Things start to get very interesting if the drill or work were to bend.... now you DO have a moment arm acting on the TS and it will lift it. Same thing is true if you only have one cutting edge of a drill doing all the work or when one cutting edge breaks through the work first at the far end. I think we have all experienced that moment...


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 17, 2021)

PeterT said:


> Susquatch I kind of get it but I’m missing the gripping part if conventional Chuck or collet is replaced by something else, the inboard bed side spider maybe? Then you indicate part on both sides of head stock? I don’t have any experience with the parts you are making so probably why I’m confused. No rush if it’s convenient one day snap a pic or scribble a sketch. I’m thinking forward to model engine cylinder liners like my radial where there are sequential machining ops & consistency is important.





PeterT said:


> I’m missing the gripping part if conventional Chuck or collet is replaced by something else, the inboard bed side spider maybe?



Yes, that is correct. The front spider on the bed side of the headstock replaces collets and Jaws and centers the work. The rear spider at the back side of the head performs the axial alignment function. I'll make a couple of sketches tonight. But right off the cuff, I'm thinking my need is different than yours. In fact, I doubt your work is long enough to even use the rear spider. But no worries. If concentric axial alignment is needed in your application, I made another fixture that I use for shorter work that accomplishes the same thing over a shorter distance that I think would work for your needs. It's basically a double (or triple) front spider. I'll draw that up for you too.


----------



## RobinHood (Jun 17, 2021)

I believe here is what @Susquatch is doing:






He has two spiders, A and B located as shown. He prefers a spider at location B because he can have 4 tangential points of contact on the tube as opposed to 4 tangential lines of contact as would be produced by a 4J chuck jaw. He first indicates location 1 true with spindle bore of lathe. The cylinder is not yet running true, only at location 1. He now uses spider A to adjust and eliminate the runout at both location 2 and 3 in the cylinder, the pivot point being the true running location 1. Since he has ball points of contact only, there is no distortion as a 4J would cause.

Sorry @Susquatch for jumping in, and drawing such a bent barrel... it is for illustration purposes only.

@PeterT , for your shorter cylinder liners, I would bore soft jaws with locating features as required for repeatability. Or a soft, bored, collet would work as well.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 17, 2021)

RobinHood said:


> The rotational force has no moment arm w.r.t. the TS body; thus it does not have a tendency to lift it.



This is a very interesting question. If I understand the point you are making (a huge assumption), I don't think the book analysis fully applies to this case. Yes, the book is correct, but only for the case where both forces are reacted. The analysis does not apply when only one of the two forces is reacted. In the case of a tailstock sitting on the bed, one of the moments is reacted by the bed, but nothing reacts the other moment except the weight of the tailstock. Therefore the load is not balanced and the unreacted side of the tailstock will lift off of the bed if and when the torque exceeds the weight moment of the tailstock itself.

Of course, if the tailstock is tightened down from beneath the bed, this cannot happen as both forces ARE reacted in this case.

If the tailstock is only loosly held from beneath the bed, it will lift (even if imperceptibly) by whatever flex there is in the loose clamping system.

All of this also assumes that the drill bit itself is strong enough to transmit such a large moment. For small bits, that is unlikely. For large bits it should be easy.

You can easily test it. Chuck a 1/2" bar in the lathe Jaws and put the other end into the tailstock drill chuck. Then manually turn the lathe head in the normal direction using two chuck wrenches on opposite sides. It will take significant force, but you will be able to lift the tailstock off of the rear way.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 17, 2021)

RobinHood said:


> I believe here is what @Susquatch is doing:
> 
> View attachment 15436
> 
> ...



I think it's PERFECT!

Also, the bent barrel is perfect too because it demonstrates the fact that the rear spider does NOT center the part. It aligns the part.

Thanks for saving me the work.


----------



## PeterT (Jun 17, 2021)

RobinHood said:


> Things start to get very interesting if the drill or work were to bend.... now you DO have a moment arm acting on the TS and it will lift it. Same thing is true if you only have one cutting edge of a drill doing all the work or when one cutting edge breaks through the work first at the far end. I think we have all experienced that moment...



We might be saying the exact same thing, just to what extent & probably why its not a concern. There has to be a reaction force (moment or couple as you say) that the drill is translating back to the TS. Since the TS is supported vertically by the ways, but is free to slide along the ways, nothing bad will happen unless the moment becomes sufficiently high to roll the TS away where is not fully supported by the one Vee slot (like a jammed drill or unequal cutting tool geometry which would have to be seriously bad). The weight of the TS is helping. But now that I think about it, even that is hard to visualize happening unless the TS becomes cocked a bit or drill bends a bit.

Lots of times I tap under power by pushing my TS into the work from the rear, kind of like this power feed/drag principle. But because the clamp is loose I'm always conscious I don't inadvertently rock the TS because it will allow that bit of side play movement. Its not like a dovetail where its constrained on both sides. Anyways, good discussion, good to brainstorm ideas.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 17, 2021)

I agree with most of what you say except this part:



PeterT said:


> But now that I think about it, even that is hard to visualize happening unless the TS becomes cocked a bit or drill bends a bit.



I don't think that either event is necessary. Torque is torque. All it takes is enough force to lift less than half the weight of the tailstock (assuming it is symetrical). A half inch drill bit can easily do this if it sticks or grabs. 

Any twisting, lifting, or distortion in the tailstock and any "bending" of the drill bit will almost certainly be the RESULT of any unbalanced torque, not the cause.


----------



## RobinHood (Jun 17, 2021)

Thanks @Susquatch and @PeterT to finish my train of thought. I stopped the post after I described what the drill bit does to the TS quill.

The TS‘s only way to resist the force couple by the drill is by applying a counter torque. It can do that by being constrained in the bed and the height of the quill above the bed. And I think this is where the “tipping” that Peter has observed comes in if the TS is not clamped down to the ways.

I also agree that any observed movement of the TS (as pictured above in the graphic) is the result and not the cause of the applied force.

Having thought about it some more, I think dragging the clamp may actually be a very good idea when power feeding the TS.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 17, 2021)

PeterT said:


> But now that I think about it, even that is hard to visualize happening unless the TS becomes cocked a bit or drill bends a bit.



I took the liberty of demonstrating.

I checked a piece of 1/4" rod in the 3 jaw chuck of my headstock and also in the drill chuck in my tailstock. Here is the setup. 






This is the tailstock at rest.






Then I applied torque to the headstock from the rear spider. That way all forces at the rod are symmetrical and purely axial. It took surprisingly little torque (maybe all of 5 ft-lbs but I didn't measure it) to lift the rear side of my tailstock off of the ways. 






Nothing was twisted or preloaded or cocked at any point before the test was started. My tailstock is no beast but it is solid and takes Morse Taper #3 tools. I normally use a 3/4" precision chuck but this chuck was already mounted so I used it.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 17, 2021)

PeterT said:


> Do you have a pic of this setup? I'm interested for ulterior motives.



Here is a drawing of the double or triple front spiders. I should have drawn it with the left set of spiders a very short distance from the end of the thick walled pipe. The only reason for three sets of screws is to accommodate various lengths of work. 

I like to use the smallest diameter of thick walled pipe that the work can fit inside of. That keeps the spider jack screws from getting to long and flexing too much.  The thicker the pipe walls, the better. 

The biggest issue with this setup is the length of the fixture sticking out of the Jaws. No heavy cuts allowed, and align/balance by hand before starting the lathe. A little distortion from overtight jaws is your friend. 






Someday soon I will make a better version of this that is bolted straight to a Backplate instead of mounted in Jaws. I may turn the whole thing out of a solid block of steel or aluminium. We will see. That should address the cantilever concern. 

I might prefer @RobinHood soft jaw solution for your situation. But if you have to work with an existing inside or outside cylinder and machine the opposite (inside or outside) cylinder perfectly concentric with the other one, then this will be better.


----------



## RobinHood (Jun 17, 2021)

Susquatch said:


> Someday soon I will make a better version of this that is bolted straight to a Backplate instead of mounted in Jaws. I may turn the whole thing out of a solid block of steel or aluminium. We will see. That should address the cantilever concern.



You could always just use a steady rest to support the end. That should help with rigidity.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 18, 2021)

RobinHood said:


> You could always just use a steady rest to support the end. That should help with rigidity.



That is a good idea. I've looked at that in the past and decided against it. The work is inside the fixture and the only access to it is from the end. I don't think I could use a steady on the body of the fixture as is because the fixture distorts from the jack screws and any movement in the fixture induced by the steady would in turn induce movement in the work, which would defeat the purpose of the fixture - to hold the part in perfect concentrity with the axis of the Spindle. 

However, I suppose one could turn the outside of the fixture before mounting the steady. 

Lastly, I think one could use the steady with a few thou of clearance - acting as a safety net if you will. 

I will take a good look at these last two options the next time I am doing this kind of work. 

In any event, I only take very light cuts and it's never been an issue. But I do confess that it worries me hence my desire to make a stronger fixture.

Thanks for chiming in. It's always good to review my practices and you made me think about them again.


----------



## RobinHood (Jun 18, 2021)

You make excellent points as to why a steady may not be advantageous in your case. When one works with very tight tolerances (like you seem to with your work), everything acts like rubber.

I don’t know how much stick out you have with your fixture. Your 4J must be in good condition as well as any bell mouthing of the jaws could lead to a disaster very quickly - even with light cuts.

It does seem that a flanged arrangement would be the better / best choice then. You could at least grip it with some force. What might improve things even more is to have a close fitting stub into your chuck bore behind the flange. Any bending on the unsupported tube end would be resisted by the stub boss inside the chuck bore and not just the jaws. With heavy wall tubing to mount your work piece into, you might then not need a steady at all.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 18, 2021)

Thanks @RobinHood. 

I'm not sure I understand the concept of this stub. Could you elaborate a wee bit more for me?

My longer term thinking is to dispense with the regular thick wall and go extremely thick wall instead. About 12 inches long with a 5 inch OD and a 2" ID. Might have to make it from 5" bar stock. I'd get a thick Backplate (say 2") and cut a deep (say 1") recess in the front of it to take the cylinder with a press fit. Then bolt the two together with prolly six 3/8 machine screws through the Backplate into threaded holes in the cylinder body. Basically, the idea is to make a special axial chuck.


----------



## PeterT (Jun 18, 2021)

Susquatch said:


> Here is a drawing of the double or triple front spiders. I should have drawn it with the left set of spiders a very short distance from the end of the thick walled pipe. The only reason for three sets of screws is to accommodate various lengths of work.



So are you also using a spider on the outboard (left) side of headstock spindle like for a barrel/tube part that extends through headstock & you indicate both end ID's? Or is the part short & confined to RHS of headstock? If so you you're saying you DTI on the left end of the bore ID with extended needle or pivot/lever indicator arm maybe?


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 18, 2021)

PeterT said:


> So are you also using a spider on the outboard (left) side of headstock spindle like for a barrel/tube part that extends through headstock & you indicate both end ID's? Or is the part short & confined to RHS of headstock? If so you you're saying you DTI on the left end of the bore ID with extended needle or pivot/lever indicator arm maybe?
> 
> 
> View attachment 15486View attachment 15487



I have both situations @PeterT. It depends on the size of the part I am working on. Long barrels extend out through the rear (left side) short barrels are mounted in dual spiders at the front (right side).

But do not make the mistake of thinking that parts are dialed in at the rear. They are only moved at the rear to dial in at the front. You want to dial in the axis of the work end to be perfectly concentric to the axis of the spindle. You do not care how much the back end has to be moved off center to accomplish this. The same applies to smaller parts mounted only at the front. Basically, you want all of the work you do on the part to be concentric with the axis of the part where you are working on it. If you misalign the axis of the work from the axis of the part, it can never perform as well as a fully aligned part can.

@RobinHood applogized for the crooked barrel in his drawing. But, his drawing was actually perfect because that's exactly how it looks in reality.


----------



## RobinHood (Jun 18, 2021)

Something like this (the blue body). It has a stub part that is a close fit into the chuck bore to locate it. The chuck jaws just clamp it. All the cutting forces are through the cylinder (thick walled pipe) right into the chuck body. No way that that will ”walk out” of the jaws.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 18, 2021)

PeterT said:


> So are you also using a spider on the outboard (left) side of headstock spindle like for a barrel/tube part that extends through headstock & you indicate both end ID's? Or is the part short & confined to RHS of headstock? If so you you're saying you DTI on the left end of the bore ID with extended needle or pivot/lever indicator arm maybe?
> 
> 
> View attachment 15486View attachment 15487



One more thing might help improve your understanding of what I'm doing and why. The whole reason I jumped in on this thread was to point out that the bore of a barrel is never perfectly concentric with the outside of the barrel. Drills just dont go that straight for very long. Normally, the drilled hole follows an arc through the barrel. Some barrel makers attempt to straighten the barrel to make the bore straighter, but this introduces stresses in the metal that are worse than the curve. So the best barrel makers merely turn the outside using the entry and exit holes as center's. 99.9% of people out there look at the barrel and assume that it's a straight hole from end to end. Little do they know that the barrel is straight, but the hole through it is not. 

As I said in my first post in this thread. I have never ever seen even one barrel with a perfectly straight bore. Not one in hundreds. 

It falls then to the machinist to decide how to deal with the curved path that the bore follows within the barrel. The majority of competitive machinists generally chamber, thread, and crown concentric to the bore at whatever end they are working on. To do otherwise results in all kinds of evil things detrimental to accuracy.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 18, 2021)

RobinHood said:


> Something like this (the blue body). It has a stub part that is a close fit into the chuck bore to locate it. The chuck jaws just clamp it. All the cutting forces are through the cylinder (thick walled pipe) right into the chuck body. No way that that will ”walk out” of the jaws.
> 
> View attachment 15488



Yes! I get it! That's sort of what I had in mind by recessing the pipe into the Backplate. I can't really do a stub such as you have drawn because that would block off the spindle and I often have work that needs to extend into the spindle. But I certainly could open up the Backplate ID a bit and stick a fat sleeve down in there. That would be an improvement on my press fit recess. In other words, I'll do both! Plus the Bolts instead of Jaws! 

Thanks @RobinHood!


----------



## RobinHood (Jun 18, 2021)

You are welcome,

Once I understood what you were machining and the associated challenges, I just started “brainstorming“ and tossing around ideas in my head of how one could make the set-up more rigid without losing versatility.

Let us know how you make out - when you get to that point. I know you have not enough work right now...


----------



## PeterT (Jun 18, 2021)

So now your spider is aligning the part so both end diameters are clocked perfectly concentric to spindle axis. But you cant control a distorted bore path like you were saying. Why should a deep re-drill or reamer now follow a straight path? Why wouldn't it be heavily influenced by existing bore and largely follow along any deviation? How do you quantify deviation & bore diameter before & after the re-dressing operation?


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 19, 2021)

PeterT said:


> So now your spider is aligning the part so both end diameters are clocked perfectly concentric to spindle axis. But you cant control a distorted bore path like you were saying. Why should a deep re-drill or reamer now follow a straight path? Why wouldn't it be heavily influenced by existing bore and largely follow along any deviation? How do you quantify deviation & bore diameter before & after the re-dressing operation?
> 
> View attachment 15492



Your drawing is incorrect at both ends. 

Although this is a gross exaggeration of what things really look like, hopefully it will help you see the situation better. 






The axis of the bore at the work end is what matters. It must be aligned with the axis of the spindle. In the drawing, even the face of the barrel at the right side is not square to the axis of the inside bore. It must be faced off square as the first step of any subsequent work. All indicating and alignment is done at the right side where the work will be done. The left side is only positioned (not centered) such that the right side is both centered AND aligned. 



PeterT said:


> Why wouldn't it be heavily influenced by existing bore and largely follow along any deviation?



You are of course correct, it is HEAVILY influenced. But not TOTALLY influenced. In the pursuit of perfection, HEAVILY is not sufficient. To help achieve perfection, we do everything we can to make sure we are as close to perfect as possible.

There is no need to quantify deviation & bore diameter before & after the re-dressing operation. The end results and performance of the finished work is what matters.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 19, 2021)

PeterT said:


> So now your spider is aligning the part so both end diameters are clocked perfectly concentric to spindle axis. But you cant control a distorted bore path like you were saying. Why should a deep re-drill or reamer now follow a straight path? Why wouldn't it be heavily influenced by existing bore and largely follow along any deviation? How do you quantify deviation & bore diameter before & after the re-dressing operation?
> 
> View attachment 15492



Reading your post again, I think perhaps it would help if I added a few other points and explanations. 

Your drawing assumes that the OD of the barrel is curved. It is actually straight. The OD is typically cut or ground from the original stock AFTER the bore is drilled by mounting it on centers at the drill entry and exit holes. We are concerned here with the ID, not the OD. The ID is the drilled hole. The drilled hole is what follows an arc inside the barrel. It is the axis of the drilled hole that is important.

To give you an idea of scale, high quality barrels usually have to be offset by 50 to 250 thou at the back of the headstock to achieve concentricity at the front. Their length is usually 26 inches or so. These are high quality premium custom barrels made with the finest materials and drilling technology available. I reject barrels that are over a quarter of an inch. A typical factory barrel will be out by 3/8 of an inch and often more. A typical factory install pays no attention to this internal arc. The factory simply centers the work at both ends (essentially the same as your drawing) and has at it. The result is a chamber and receiver fitting that is "cock eyed" and "misaligned" from the axis of the bore. This results in unbalanced forces and less than ideal performance in use. Competitive performance requires precision machining.


----------



## PeterT (Jun 19, 2021)

Susquatch said:


> Your drawing assumes that the OD of the barrel is curved. It is actually straight. The OD is typically cut or ground from the original stock AFTER the bore is drilled by mounting it on centers at the drill entry and exit holes. We are concerned here with the ID, not the OD. The ID is the drilled hole. The drilled hole is what follows an arc inside the barrel. It is the axis of the drilled hole that is important.



'Drawing' is being kind haha. It was just a quick, crude cartoon sketch in Excel so kind of limited to show detail. No, there was no assumption or implication on my part that the OD was this way or that. I'm just focusing on the bore path and how it becomes corrected be re-drilling re-reaming. My sketch (greatly exaggerated) would represent just one problem scenario where the factory setup was perfect, but the bore drilling operation took on some deviated trajectory deeper into the bore and just forget about the OD for now. 

If you use the spider to dial in the bore ends relative to spindle axis (blue arrows) to within 0.00000001" the bigger challenge (to my simple mind) is what is happening to the bore at its maximum deviation... whatever that value is (0.001? 0.002" I'm not sure myself). I 'think' what you are hoping for is something like this, again greatly exaggerated cartoon. Where the bore is straight & slight enlarged ID is a necessary byproduct. 

But mostly I was wondering how the trajectory deviation was quantified midway down a long-ish bore. How would one know its 0.001 or 0.002 off using my purely BS hypothetical example


----------



## historicalarms (Jun 19, 2021)

Just some thoughts that might help a neophyte barrel chamberer that is reading this thread. 
       Actually, commercial barrel makers do have huge "staightening" iron-worker presses,  that are used to straighten barrels  fresh out of the boring/drilling process and the barrel straightening operators are the highest paid employees in the plant.  Then they are stress relieved.
    I get what you are saying about canted chamberings that do not line perfectly with the bore could be a concern for an F--class shooter but the reality for 99.9% of shooters, the miss-alignment that a 3" long chamber reamer will have on a bore that is out a few thou from "absolutely straight" will be pretty much completely impossible to detect without some very expensive "comparative"  measuring devises. Many more "bad chambering jobs" are done because the operator forced the reamer to work faster by not removing and cleaning of scarf as often as required.

     To take this further, actually a bent barrel will shoot just as accurate & to "point of aim" repeatedly just as good as a "measured perfectly straight bored barrel. You just cant spin a bent bore barrel onto an action that has been scope sighted in with a straight bore barrel and expect it to shoot to the same point of impact....it will change but that is what "adjustable sights" have been used for for a couple hundred years.
     The barrel harmonics & heat dispersion from a barrel that doesn't have a "correct" bore in it  will effect the accuracy much more than the bent bore itself. If a bore has a slight radius of a curve to it, after outside contouring the blank, will have different steel thicknesses that heat up more quicker than other spots and I think that is why F-class used barrels require some extra diligence in straightening & chambering.


----------



## historicalarms (Jun 19, 2021)

PeterT said:


> 'Drawing' is being kind haha. It was just a quick, crude cartoon sketch in Excel so kind of limited to show detail. No, there was no assumption or implication on my part that the OD was this way or that. I'm just focusing on the bore path and how it becomes corrected be re-drilling re-reaming. My sketch (greatly exaggerated) would represent just one problem scenario where the factory setup was perfect, but the bore drilling operation took on some deviated trajectory deeper into the bore and just forget about the OD for now.
> 
> If you use the spider to dial in the bore ends relative to spindle axis (blue arrows) to within 0.00000001" the bigger challenge (to my simple mind) is what is happening to the bore at its maximum deviation... whatever that value is (0.001? 0.002" I'm not sure myself). I 'think' what you are hoping for is something like this, again greatly exaggerated cartoon. Where the bore is straight & slight enlarged ID is a necessary byproduct.
> 
> But mostly I was wondering how the trajectory deviation was quantified midway down a long-ish bore. How would one know its 0.001 or 0.002 off using my purely BS hypothetical example




   "trajectory" is never set by the barrel condition or straightness but bullet direction is. Trajectory is only a condition of velocity + gravity + distance. Bullet direction is a condition set by the barrel but ends at the bore muzzle, after that the "trajectory conditions" & ammo design take over. The barrels job starts and ends within itself.


----------



## PeterT (Jun 19, 2021)

Sorry I said 'bore path' initially & then said 'trajectory' secondly which was misleading. Nothing to do with bullet in flight, I just mean the resultant geometry of connecting circular cross sections of the bore down the tube if one accurately could map it. Like a straight bore would be a line. A bowed bore would be a 2D curve. A wandering drill would be some kind of 3D spline path etc.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 19, 2021)

PeterT said:


> I'm just focusing on the bore path and how it becomes corrected be re-drilling re-reaming.



Nope. Nobody is correcting the existing path. Merely locating it and precisely following it with subsequent machining operations so that everything stays in perfect concentricity with the existing bore. 



PeterT said:


> A bowed bore would be a 2D curve. A wandering drill would be some kind of 3D spline path etc.



Yup. But the machinist cannot change such things. They are what they are. We do the best we can with what we have. After that, the barrel either performs and is kept or it doesn't perform and gets discarded or turned into chunks of good steel used for other purposes.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 19, 2021)

historicalarms said:


> Just some thoughts that might help a neophyte barrel chamberer that is reading this thread.



Right off the top, it's important to understand that my world is benchrest, not F-Class, or the other 99.99%. That probably explains a lot right there for all those who know the difference. 

It's also important to understand that my first post was only to point out that barrels are not really straight. I didn't intend that this get carried off into a debate about methods or for that matter what the neophyte knows or doesn't know. In the process, I got asked some questions which I answered as appropriate. 

Your knowledge of the subject matter tells me that you understand the debates as well as anyone. I'd prefer not to get dragged down those rabbit holes. I think you will agree that there are better places to do that than here on a metal workers forum. 

In my experience, many of the points of view that you raise are valid ones. In fact, if you read the entire thread, you will find that I already said many of the things you did. For the ones that we don't agree on, I'd prefer to just agree to disagree and skip the debate. 

I believe that the majority of benchrest competitors chamber the way I do it. But there are also those that don't. I did not develop my methods. I merely evaluated what the best of the best and all do, looked at their results in competition, and then decided that what works for them should work for me too. And it certainly does. 

I will say that it has always struck me as odd that other competitive disciplines have different favoured approaches. But I don't think that's a bad thing. I think it's wonderful!


----------



## historicalarms (Jun 20, 2021)

Sorry that I pi$$ed in your porridge...it wasn't my intention at all and if your read my post again you will easily see the reference to "neophytes"....if your preferred set-up does wonders for your group size then by all means continue.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 20, 2021)

historicalarms said:


> Sorry that I pi$$ed in your porridge...it wasn't my intention at all and if your read my post again you will easily see the reference to "neophytes"....if your preferred set-up does wonders for your group size then by all means continue.



No worries. And of course I saw the reference to neophytes. I even quoted that.

But it did feel a bit unwarranted given the reason for posting. FWIW, I agree that competition tends to set unreasonably high standards for neophytes and the average Joe with factory equipment. On the other hand, I have owned a few factory jobs that performed way above average and built quite a few regular field class fly killers for average Joe's or at least let them try one of mine at the range. You couldn't wipe the smile off their face with a bulldozer! 

And yes, Ive seen a hundred fellows who were thrilled with something I wouldn't keep in a wet corner of the barn. But there is an old saying - "Success is getting what you want, happiness is liking what you get." I do love happy people. So ya, I appreciate your point of view.


----------



## historicalarms (Jun 21, 2021)

Ha ha ha   ya I'm all better now too....not usually as touchy as that but maybe those damn Phizer shots hives may have finally influenced my usual "respectful demeaner". 

    After I pushed "send" it struck me that probably only one other topic in the history of man has garnered more discourse than guns since the Chinese invented gun powder in, I think the 14th century and that would be flight....I'm sure a couple homo-sapiens at the first ever gathering saw a bird flying and one of them said "UG" and the other replied UG-N-UG and the conflict was on as to how to do that better....been the same with guns.


----------



## Susquatch (Jun 21, 2021)

historicalarms said:


> Ha ha ha   ya I'm all better now too....not usually as touchy as that but maybe those damn Phizer shots hives may have finally influenced my usual "respectful demeaner".
> 
> After I pushed "send" it struck me that probably only one other topic in the history of man has garnered more discourse than guns since the Chinese invented gun powder in, I think the 14th century and that would be flight....I'm sure a couple homo-sapiens at the first ever gathering saw a bird flying and one of them said "UG" and the other replied UG-N-UG and the conflict was on as to how to do that better....been the same with guns.



So true.


----------

