barrel bushing or not

First topic message reminder :

my question is what are the advantages and disadvantages of slide with barrel bushing verses slide without bushing as in the springfield RO verses the TRP model?

Thanks a bunch for those pictures!
What does your lap look like on the business end? Store bought or shop made?
How much straight section do you leave on the cone where it contacts the slide?

HenryA wrote:Thanks a bunch for those pictures!
What does your lap look like on the business end? Store bought or shop made?
How much straight section do you leave on the cone where it contacts the slide?

It's a brass, adjustable,  MSC bottom lap that I turn between centers to true it.
I usually make it about .150 and adjust the cone in or out until I get good lock / unlock while cycling..

And after you adjust it, do you loctite the cone in place?

HenryA wrote:And after you adjust it, do you loctite the cone in place?

Yes... At one time I over killed it with 680 or 620, but the threads are numerous enough to be held with any medium strength thread locker..There is very little stress on it. I have yet to have one move..

This is a really elegant set-up and I think I can do it.
Thanks for sharing this.

Like any tool if used properly it will give good results. The RR has a few drawbacks but if the group fired is good than it can be accepted with the understanding it could be better. Though possible it's very unlikely that an RR  test results in a good group that was not.

Frank

Frank,
Not one more word about ransom rests on this thread.

Well maybe.
The way I think about it is that you find the load that shoots best in the gun and then go shoot that load.

The gun is what it is, the rest is what it is, the ammo is what it is and the test targets are what they are. Then you go shoot.

Nothing absolute about it, as I suppose you could never find the last .001" grouping ability. It's just what it is. It's about as far as I know to go with it.

Rob Kovach wrote:Frank,
Not one more word about ransom rests on this thread.

WHOOPS!!!!

It's ok, HenryA. Frank needs a reminder to return to the topic once in awhile.

Jerry Keefer wrote:

HenryA wrote:Thanks a bunch for those pictures!
What does your lap look like on the business end? Store bought or shop made?
How much straight section do you leave on the cone where it contacts the slide?

It's a brass, adjustable,  MSC bottom lap that I turn between centers to true it.
I usually make it about .150 and adjust the cone in or out until I get good lock / unlock while cycling..

Hi Jerry,
Thank you for being so generous with sharing your knowledge and techniques with all of us!
My light bulb really lit up with this post because if I understand correctly the slide and barrel move back in unison until the barrel feet clear the slide stop pin. This would be when the diameters of the cone and slide disengage and the cone taper takes care of barrel movement in the unlocking segment.
I shot next to Keith Sanderson in 2003 and he was using an SVI with a cone barrel and ended up placing 3rd overall. I couldn't figure out how it was so accurate until your posts and can see how much easier it is to fit a barrel!
Thank you sir,
Wes

Here's a bushing gun that is smoking hot..set up as the previous bushing pictures depict.  Yesterday.. 2658..
Can't wait to see the cone gun ...

That's impressive shooting. I love seeing 50 yard targets with x counts that high. Many years ago I was shooting a state championship with Steve Reiter. We were both close going into the .45 match. I started taunting him that I was going to beat him. That fired him up, I think he shot an 893 and whooped me. His targets were like this. Don't see targets this fantastic very often.
Jon

Wes Lorenz wrote:
My light bulb really lit up with this post because if I understand correctly the slide and barrel move back in unison until the barrel feet clear the slide stop pin. This would be when the diameters of the cone and slide disengage and the cone taper takes care of barrel movement in the unlocking segment.
I shot next to Keith Sanderson in 2003 and he was using an SVI with a cone barrel and ended up placing 3rd overall. I couldn't figure out how it was so accurate until your posts and can see how much easier it is to fit a barrel!
Thank you sir,
Wes

 The slide and barrel do move back inn unison until the barrel "feet" (lower lug) comes off the pin then the link pulls the barrel straight down about .050 depending on the slide and barrel. There is no separation until the barrel moves down that about .050. If the lock-up does not have the ability to pivot there will then be great stress placed on the cone and slide increasing wear.

Jerry Keefer wrote:

HenryA wrote:Thanks a bunch for those pictures!
What does your lap look like on the business end? Store bought or shop made?
How much straight section do you leave on the cone where it contacts the slide?

It's a brass, adjustable,  MSC bottom lap that I turn between centers to true it.
I usually make it about .150 and adjust the cone in or out until I get good lock / unlock while cycling..

Which is why using the cone system makes much more sense than the bushing. Less set-up and one less piece in the system!
The .580" OD on a Kart barrel is around .400" long, thus the reason for angle boring a bushing.
The .150 land and adjusting the cone until it unlocks properly was what I was missing, Thanks Jerry
Wes

I'm not sure that the cone would require less set-up. Machining the barrel, making the cone and installing it on the barrel. The slide then to has to be set-up so as to get the hole bored in line with the actual barrel angle at lock-up. As Jerry stated earlier he bores it straight. Boring a tapered hole in a milling machine is not possible unless a Tree angle boring head is used. I assume it can be milled buy using a dividing head or rotary table. A Tapered reamer can be used but then the lathe would have to be set to match the angle of the barrel attachment if a tapered bore is used.
 Furthermore the barrel must pivot, double boring either cone or bushing is required. There can be no movement between the slide and barrel until the lugs disengage.
 Long before doing all that the barrel should be tested because no matter how well the cone or bushing is done if the barrel will not group well then nothing can be done to better it. It would be a lot of wasted work if after it was all done it was found that the barrel had a problem.  Furthermore as the group is tightened there will be a limit as to how small a group can be made. Issues such as the bullet's ability considering it be of perfect design and power charge, the barrel and fits in other areas come into play.
 I don't doubt that the the bushingless style will group good but at what expense? I don't see that there will be less wear than a bushing type plus if the pivot is not provided for then what ever system used the wear will increase.
 Those groups shot in the photos are outstanding, I doubt that a cone will do much to  improve that over the well done accuracy job using the bushing.
 In a double bored bushing there is very little wear. There is no sliding motion. Contact at lock-up is half on top and half on the bottom of the pivot axis. When the barrel drops at un-lock the sliding motion is supported by the second halves of the double bored hole.

Frank

You see Frank,
This is exactly where you and I differ..I post here to share and compare.. I view the gun much like a NASCAR crew chief looks at the car. WHATEVER it takes to make the machine perform BETTER..I am not looking for anything generic. I don't care how much work it takes.. For some one who declares himself as the Ultimate Machinist, you certainly have a condescending outlook. Like I said before in a previous post, " If you can't see the operative, and mechanical advantage to the cone, I can't help you"..

I have no doubt that spending an unlimited amount of money as a NASCAR chief does will not result in a better gun. Those cars go for over a million and the amount of money won at those races justifies the expense. Quite often I hear those that do not compete in Bullseye say it cost too much money to buy the fancy race guns needed to compete in Bullseye. Others are demanding classes of match that will limit the type gun used something like Production Guns where it's available off the shelf!
 My comments are directed to the new shooter, a young a family man with the expense of a family and a home that doers not have thousands of dollars to spend so as to enjoy being able to compete in a shooting sport. At my club the IDPA type matches bring out a lot of shooters and us bullseye shooters watch as they compete with simple out of the box equipment. I'm trying to point out that they need not have to get the latest innovation to compete at a high level. Most of the High Masters are shooting bushing gun and many of those that are not got the High Master classification with a BUSHING gun. I might add that most if not all Bullseye records have been set with the Bushing Gun. I want then to understand that they can do as well as those guys with NASCAR type guns.
 I one time at a revolver match shot next to a Doctor that had a complete set of Korth Revolvers. After the match he let me shoot them. Had I the money I would have run out and purchased a set for myself. They were great guns and had a GREAT Big price too! However I won the match with my S&W revolvers!
 Those great targets in the photos were not shot by the gun, they were shot by someone that took the time and effort to learn how to produce the great targets shown! I want the new shooters to know that they too can take a good shooting gun and be able to through perfect practice compete with the best without taking a second mortgage on their home!
 Yes I know what better design and proper machining can do, I do it for a living. Local industry bring me in to make their machinery more accurate, work longer with less break downs and they are willing to spend the money to do it!
 Back when my father was taken out of the Army to return to work for GM that changed their Linden NJ plant to producing WW2 fighter planes he was assigned to work on the machine guns. They had to work perfect, be accurate and not fail. Any of which would could cost the pilot his life, get the plane shot down and if the enemy that was in the sights was not shot then they were able to shoot other planes or troops on the ground. A perfect example for need the NASCAR type gun. No expense was too great!!
 Furthermore all this NASCAR ultra gun design has little to do with the question the OP posted. He simply wanted to know about the RO VS the TRP and as too often here the answers suggest that the new shooter get some type of NASCAR unlimited cost device.
 Simply put the Bushing system will get anyone in the High Master Class if they learn to shoot and you are better off spending the extra money on ammo and match entry's learning how to shoot than think they need NASCAR costing guns to do so.

It seems the cone vs the bushing is just a variation on ford vs chevy or colt vs smith Wesson, both can produce top scores in the right hands and people have their ideas on which is best.

Deerspy wrote:my question is what are the advantages and disadvantages of slide with barrel bushing verses slide without bushing as in the springfield RO verses the TRP model?

As far as I can see, we're right on track in a discussion of bushing vs. non-bushing 1911s. As to whether the RO or TRP is the best choice is another question that each shooter will have to make based on his or her wallet and whatever perceived benefits either model provides. Speaking for myself, I'd want the one that shot better.

At factory gun level we're not talking about NASCAR or NASA budgets, so arguments about how someone may not "need" the fanciest or most expensive gun really are off topic.

At a factory level, nothing Springfield offers short of their custom shop guns offer the accuracy level as sold to reach much higher than sharp shooter or expert  level with out modification, and to do a change of the bushing to a  re-work of the cone system is a huge difference in expense. So as to which is better, id say the RO as its a simple fix to change the bushing rather than try and find a smith who is competent enough to rework the cone.

I agree Dave; It is a Ford/Chevy argument. Possibly more like a Ford/Cadillac debate.