Originally Posted by
82boy
Just my 2 cents, and a bit of constructive criticism.
What is accomplished in the 38 case with a bearing is that it has a smaller surface area. Not that the ball bearing has anything to do with friction, but that it places the turning force on a smaller point. You could accomplish the same thing buy making a spacer to fit in the cocking piece and place a pointed surface to contact the BAS. It functions in the same way as when someone places something on a pivot, and takes a steel rod and points it up. The best example I can think of is a wind flag. If you look at wind flags they usually take the contact point and point it up to reduces the surface area. Another example is a shooting rest the feet are pointed to make a smaller surface area, and allow them to turn, it also digs into the concrete do to them being harder, but for this discussion this is a mute point. Another flaw that people do is the drill a divot into the back action screw for the ball bearing to ride in, and they actually increased the surface area, and defeated the purpose.
I will say that the thrust bearing is a great way to go, (If fact you are somewhat close in design to what SSS has done to for the accu-stock guns. They have used their idea ever since they have come out.) but I see that there could be a flaw in your idea. The point to making a kit such as this is for the newer accu-stock gun with there rear cocking indicator to pass through. Maybe I am wrong but it looks like the hole in the bearing and the washers is too small for the cocking indicator to go through. The only question I have for the spacer is ,with it installed does the BAS partly cover the safety? The spacer does not cause the BAS to cover the safety on a Stevens 200 action and the safety is still working just fine depite the additional .185" added to the length of the BAS. You are correct in that the hole on this is in fact too small, the cocking indicators on new bolts are rounghly .245" and this bearing has only a .125" ID but LeeH is going to try to drill these out to .25". I would have tired but unfortunately I can't because of my health issues right at this moment. We will see how it works out for LeeH. The previous idea I had seemed like it would work with all actions until people brought up valid points and I admitted it, sent out emails, PM's and certified letters acknowledging this. This version WILL NOT work with cocking indicator bolts and I never said that it would in THIS thread. I did in the previous thread but that one is over and done with as far as I am concerned and this is a whole new thread about something different. Either way, live and learn, nothing ventured nothing gained, yada, yada, yada.
IMO you need one of the newer bolts with the cocking indicator to test your invention. Placing the kit you have in an older style non cocking indicator bolt is just reinventing the wheel, with a higher cost fix than that of the old tried and trued. The more ball bearings equate into more surface area, and increased bolt lift over the single bearing. It does still lower the bolt lift force, and it can be used on the newer guns. Personally, I disagree with this because the bearing in the 38 special kit drags while the bearing here should in fact roll.
Again not to flame you, or stir the pot, it is just constructive criticism, if I was looking to do gunsmith work I'm not, or invent new parts not planning to do this either, I would first go out and spend some money into proper tools to test, and make the parts. To truly tell if your making a difference you need to find better testing methods than a fish scale Agreed and I am not going to make excuses as to why. If you truly what to know what your accomplishing, you need to be scientific with your research. You need the parts you are building the fix for, and you need a good accurate repeatable test procedures Again I totally agree. I would also advise you to contact MR. F before you did anything on this site with giving away of your products. I have previously given stuff away on this site without issue but evidentally I was trying to "just skirts some of the rules on this website" by offering something for free according to a moderator in the other thread. Because of this I am just not going to give anything away, period end of story. This is the reason I posted where the bearing could be bought so they could if they choose. Unfortunately Mr Furious felt the need to delete it. Not trying to act like I am stomping my feet in a temper tantrum or anything like that but I will not get accused of "just skirts some of the rules on this website" again. That wasn't my intent in the begining and now this is the best way to keep from being accused of it.
And to all the Neigh sayers, that states that the people are holding him back, I do not believe you were holding me back in any way, I was able to get valuable information before the previous thread took on a whole new vibe with the name calling I offer you this; due to this being presented on this forum, it places legal liability onto the staff, if they say nothing. The problem is not that he is inventing a new product, (we all greatly encourage that.) but it is the way that he has presented these without the proper testing.(this thread is better than the last but still in question)I am just presenting things for people to look over, not advocating anything just presenting ideas In today money hungry lawyer friendly world people will try to get money out of anyway they can, and if someone would have an accident that was caused with his product, they sure would try to come back on this site. The staff is only policing this up because of the liability issues, and dang it, no one what to see anyone get hurt. I absolutely agree, what we do not need is another pro gun media taken away for any reason. Even if you do not agree with those here at least there is a "here" because one day there may not be. And ask any of the testers, including Greg, if safety was not my concern.
Bookmarks