| armbar |
| (.300 member) |
| 14/11/05 11:03 AM |
|
"On Face?'
|
When examining a rifle, how does one determine if it is "on face and tight"? Remove the forend and wiggle the barrels? What else? Armbar.
| mickey |
| (.416 member) |
| 14/11/05 06:12 AM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Well one poster could see daylight between the barrels and the standing breech.
| 500Nitro |
| (.450 member) |
| 14/11/05 06:50 AM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
amrbar
As has been correctly posted, " see daylight between the barrels and the standing breech"
You also have to look for gaps between the water table of an action and
the barrels - ie where the proof marks are located and where they meet the
action. This can be indicative of twisted action as well as just being off
the face.
Remove the forend and wiggle the barrels?
Yes, that is one way - with actions such as Purdey and Holland
I take off the foreend and HALF open the action and then
wiggle the barrel - the reason is the action may look and feel
on the face if you don't do this.
Als0 - check that some "gunshop gunsmith" has not peened the lumps
with a hammer or squeezed the lump in a vice to "tighten" the gun.
500 Nitro
| Marrakai |
| (.416 member) |
| 14/11/05 11:03 AM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
I do two things to check for this condition in top-lever guns. The first is to push the top-lever hard over with the thumb and hold it there, while supporting the barrels in the closed position. The tip of the index finger is then placed on the join of barrel and standing breech, and the barrels moved from side to side. This should probably then be repeated with the forend removed, taking care not to drop the barrels!
The second check is performed with the gun upside-down and horizontal with the forend removed. Holding the gun firmly by the wrist and/or buttstock with both hands, the top-lever is pushed hard-over, and the whole lot given a gentle shake from side to side.
If there is no movement detected during both these tests, IMHO the gun is tight and 'on the face'.
This assumes a visual inspection for shims and/or peening/squeezing first, of course.
Ezine
|
| (.333 member) |
| 14/11/05 12:44 PM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
I've made this thread a "sticky" for members future reference.
| DUGABOY1 |
| (.400 member) |
| 15/11/05 11:02 AM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
In reply to:
I do two things to check for this condition in top-lever guns. The first is to push the top-lever hard over with the thumb and hold it there, while supporting the barrels in the closed position. The tip of the index finger is then placed on the join of barrel and standing breech, and the barrels moved from side to side. This should probably then be repeated with the forend removed, taking care not to drop the barrels!
The second check is performed with the gun upside-down and horizontal with the forend removed. Holding the gun firmly by the wrist and/or buttstock with both hands, the top-lever is pushed hard-over, and the whole lot given a gentle shake from side to side.
If there is no movement detected during both these tests, IMHO the gun is tight and 'on the face'.
This assumes a visual inspection for shims and/or peening/squeezing first, of course.
The above is the most usefull and complete dirrection on this inspection. I find that Marrakai, is one of the two most well versed on double rifles, of anyone on the net, eventhough there are many,here, and on some other web-sites.
One more thing I think that has nothing dirrectly to do with a rifle being off face, but one that should be done at the same time as the off face inspection. This is to remove the barrels, completely, and holding the barrel set firmly in one hand, at the breach end, rap the muzzle end smartly on the heel of the other hand, or with a rubber mallet. If any viberation can be felt by the hand on the breach end of the barrels, then one should do a very extensive inspection of the rib areas, both top and bottom, to make sure there is no seperation from the barrels anyplace.
| SXS |
| (.224 member) |
| 23/11/05 02:42 AM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
A correctly jointed side by side double gun or rifle will show no gaps between the breech end of the barrels and the action face [standing breech] when closed and locked by the bolts. It should show some gap[.003-.006] between the barrel flats and the action bar. The width of the breech face and the hinge pin form a triangle which resists the side strain of firing the cartridge. For example, when the right barrel is fired, the strain is taken up by the left side of the breech and the hinge pin, and conversley for the left barrel. The opening strain is taken by the locking bolts.
As the hinge pin wears or the action is overstrained, the barrels come away from the action face. With some wear, and before a rifle is "off face" the barrels will stop against the standing breech at a slightly lower position, and the gap between the barrel flats and the action flats will diminish. This wear is compensated for by the slight taper built into the locking surfaces of the bolts and lumps. With more wear, the barrels eventually stop against the action flats, and the barrels are said to be "down on the flats". At this point,the rifle may still be tight, or some vertical loosness may be detected in the locking bolts.
With further wear or overstrain, the rifle will come "off the face", meaning that a gap occurs between the action face and the ends of the barrels. Once this happens, the rifle will loosen itself very rapidly as repeated firing will begin to hammer the hinge pin due to the head start given to the barrels by the loosness.
The best way to detect an "off face condition is to blacken the ends of the barrels with soot, and carefully put the gun together. Where the breech touches the barrels, the soot will rub off, and you will know contact has been made. This is the process by which the barrels were fitted to the action in the first place in the process known as "blacking down". A quick check can be done by holding the assembled gun to the light, and checking for no light showing at the ends of the barrels, and some light comming through the flats between the lumps. This does not work well with rifles that have sideclips or rib extensions. Another way is to close the rifle on a thin piece of paper. an "on face" rifle will not close completely. One can also remove the forend and while holding the stock and action, give the barrels a slow side to side shake. any looseness will be felt unless some clodpate has "tightened" the action by peaning the lumps. Be sure to check for this! Also examine the hook to be sure this hasn't been peaned as well.
All this being said, the only way to correctly repair an "off face" rifle is to either replace the hinge pin with a larger one and refit the barrels, or, for rifles that do not have replacable pins, weld the barrel hook and then refit the hook and barrels. Because the refitted barrels will stop at a higher spot on the standing breech, the locking bolts will also be tight again, and the rifle is good for a lot of further usefull life.
All the best, SXS
| BlainSmipy |
| (.375 member) |
| 16/02/06 04:30 AM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Yup.
| Rusty |
| (.333 member) |
| 16/02/06 09:06 AM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
No joke, just a very busy gunmaker!
| BlainSmipy |
| (.375 member) |
| 16/02/06 10:17 AM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
| Marrakai |
| (.416 member) |
| 16/02/06 11:01 AM |
|
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Colorado:
In reply to:
If the pin can be replaced, then its much cheaper.
I love that bit! You have guys who can turn up a replacement hinge-pin, thread it if necessary, profile the rounded ends, cut the slot, and then reproduce that perfectly concentric Tudor Rose and Acanthus Fiddle engraving pattern on both ends (curved surfaces) for significantly less than 300 bucks?
Maybe I should move to the US!
| BlainSmipy |
| (.375 member) |
| 16/02/06 11:19 AM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
I'm sure.
| 400NitroExpress |
| (.400 member) |
| 16/02/06 01:40 PM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
I can't get J. J.'s website to open for some reason. The last time I looked at his service price list, putting a fixed pin gun back on face was "from $250.00", and a replaceable pin gun was "from $350.00". Replaceable pin guns are usually more expensive to rejoint because a new pin must be made, as opposed to just tigging up the hook and re-fitting. Marrakai is right, the cosmetics can drive the cost up with some replaceable pin guns. However, with some top grade guns, the engraved, slotted end that you see isn't the pin itself, but a threaded cap, which simplifies pin replacement.
-----------------------------------------------------------
| banzaibird |
| (.333 member) |
| 16/02/06 09:42 PM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
What I'm wondering is how many people that get the hook changed send their rifles back for re-proof? The CIP rules say that any filing, welding, etc on the barrels (defines barrels as the whole assembly for doubles) nullifies the proof.
I ask not to be a jerk but for honest feedback in how many times things get re-proofed.
BB
| Marrakai |
| (.416 member) |
| 16/02/06 10:11 PM |
|
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
In Australia, NEVER! Refitting the hook improves the situation. If it was theoretically 'in proof' while off the face, then it has to be still in proof when repaired.
I fully realise that things may be viewed differently in the US, and that there are legal ramifications in Europe and the UK which don't apply here. Not justifying it, just telling it like it is FYI.
| Chasseur |
| (.375 member) |
| 17/02/06 12:53 AM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
JJ replaced the hinge pin on a shotgun of mine last year. Did a good job as far as I could see. The way he explained it there was a cap on the end that had the engraving on it like what 400 is talking about.
Unfortunately the 90 day turn arround is getting more and more common with the double gun smiths here in the States. In fact most of my guns seemed to be on a 120 day or so turn arround...
| bonanza |
| (.400 member) |
| 17/02/06 01:15 AM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
There are no proof laws in the US, however standard liability applies. If the gunsmith was negligent in his actions and you got injured, then he (or at least his company) is liable. Here is an example: JJ fitted a scope to a merkel 470 for a customer, it doubled on him on the bench. The guy had over 5K in hospital bills and a 3” scar on his head. He tried to sue JJ, but failed because JJ proved that he (JJ) never touched the action and that the doubling was an act of god or the fault of the owner.
| banzaibird |
| (.333 member) |
| 17/02/06 04:55 AM |
|
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
I realize that there are no proof laws here. But if you read much of what is written in other posts around these forums you will read where there are strong advocates of any work on a double be re-proofed. Now granted most of this is rechambering etc. However since the rules simply state that any work on the barrels makes the gun out of proof I was trying to get a feeling if this was a double standard issue. If so at what point and the reasoning behind choosing that point.
BB
| SGraves155 |
| (.224 member) |
| 19/02/07 05:28 AM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
A beginner's question: Besides design and materials, is going "off face" related also to chamber pressures and muzzle energies? If so, which has a greater effect?
| 4seventy |
| (Sponsor) |
| 19/02/07 04:46 PM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
SGraves155,
Muzzle energy, no not really.
High chamber pressure, yes definately.
Welcome to the forum by the way.
| Pugwash |
| (.300 member) |
| 27/03/07 08:20 AM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
As well as the barrels fitting the the crosspin properly to hold the them on the face,when the gun was new it would have had a bearing between the front of the back lump and the action.This is known as the draw.On the more expensive double rifles,and now on the shotguns the draw surface is detachable,thus being replaceable.It is important,especially on the larger caliber rifles that the draw has a good bearing,otherwise the action will tend to stretch resulting in the gun coming off the face.
| DUGABOY1 |
| (.400 member) |
| 13/11/08 02:07 PM |
|
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
This is true of a quality double rifle! Properly fitted there are other factors as well. Many discount the value of extended ribs like the Greener Cross-bolt,hidden rib extentions, and dolls head extentions. These things act the same as the draw in the lumps against the action barr sides, and There is also draw between the rib extention and the sides of it's slot, then there are clips which also add to the guard against twisting the barrel set away from the action face on fireing. The More bearing surfaces a rifle has in these places the less likely the rifle will come off face from proper use, so all are valuable. The doll's head, and the so-called Greener cross bolt, and bite on the lugs, also retards the tendency to "OPEN" around the action cross pin, even ona double discharge!
It is unfortunate that many of these features are considered non-functional, when properly fitted,and cared for, all play a part in the strenth of the barrel set action retaining a solid mateing!
| empirevr |
| (.375 member) |
| 04/02/09 07:33 PM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Ah ha!
Exactly what I was going to ask about.......the value of, and best type of, third bite.....
Purdey hidden bite?
Greener cross bolt?
Dolls head?
Which is best to protect against coming off-face?
Thanks!
| Der_Jaeger |
| (.375 member) |
| 04/02/09 09:27 PM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Quote:
Ah ha!
Exactly what I was going to ask about.......the value of, and best type of, third bite.....
Purdey hidden bite?
Greener cross bolt?
Dolls head?
Which is best to protect against coming off-face?
Thanks!
There is no doubt that a properly fitted Greener Crossbolt or Kersten Double Crossbolt (using the round bolt!!) is the best way to pin the action against the face and prevent the three firing forces (bending, axial, radial) from trying to do otherwise.
|
CptCurl
|
| (.450 member) |
| 04/02/09 11:03 PM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Quote:
There is no doubt that a properly fitted Greener Crossbolt or Kersten Double Crossbolt (using the round bolt!!) is the best way to pin the action against the face and prevent the three firing forces (bending, axial, radial) from trying to do otherwise.
I don't agree. The Webley screw grip is stronger. An awesome system!
Curl
| empirevr |
| (.375 member) |
| 09/02/09 08:14 PM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Quick q...
Underlever or toplever for strength????
Ben
| Der_Jaeger |
| (.375 member) |
| 09/02/09 11:19 PM |
|
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Good question. Strength of the lock, or strength of the action itself? I like the looks of an under lever on a classically styled gun but, I think the fewer holes along the action bar, the stronger the action. Among all of the various opening devices, the side lever reigns supreme in the looks department, for me. The question of strength would still apply. It's all theoretical as I'm sure no action has really failed due "only" to the opening/locking mechanism with proper loads.
| empirevr |
| (.375 member) |
| 10/02/09 10:39 PM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Hmm
The double rolling block seems the best double rifle action to have........!!!
Time someone made this, the looks are A-OK to me........and the gun would take any cals/loads.......no?
Just a thought!
Ben
| DUGABOY1 |
| (.400 member) |
| 22/02/09 06:48 AM |
|
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Quote:Quote:
There is no doubt that a properly fitted Greener Crossbolt or Kersten Double Crossbolt (using the round bolt!!) is the best way to pin the action against the face and prevent the three firing forces (bending, axial, radial) from trying to do otherwise.
I don't agree. The Webley screw grip is stronger. An awesome system!
Curl
The so-called screw-grip fastener, is only as strong if it is fitted to a doll's head as the example you show in the picture above! If the screw-grip is on the end of a hidden extention, then it looses the ability to retard the forward movement, and only retards the opening around the hinged pin, and has no effect on stretch!
By the way that is a very nice double rifle in your picture! Is it your's?
| 450_366 |
| (.400 member) |
| 22/02/09 07:02 AM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Quote:
Hmm
The double rolling block seems the best double rifle action to have........!!!
Time someone made this, the looks are A-OK to me........and the gun would take any cals/loads.......no?
Just a thought!
Ben
Do you mean rolling block as remingtons rolling block? That one doesent take much to blow apart.
| 450_366 |
| (.400 member) |
| 22/02/09 07:20 AM |
|
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
I need to ask this.
Doesent the part in front of the bite in the lumps fit tightly in the action and helps to support the hinge pin from the stretch?
If so it means that when the gun is off face and the hinge pin only is tightend, it will take the full blow of the forces?
| DUGABOY1 |
| (.400 member) |
| 22/02/09 07:46 AM |
|
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Quote:
Hmm
The double rolling block seems the best double rifle action to have........!!!
Time someone made this, the looks are A-OK to me........and the gun would take any cals/loads.......no?
Just a thought!
Ben
A rolling block action is very springy, and doesn't handle pressure well! I think what you might mean is a FALLING BLOCK ! A falling block double rifle like the Ruger No1 is strong as anything chambered for a sporting cartridge.
It would take some re-design to be a workable double rifle, but could be done! I've been working on a re-design of the basic Ruger No1 into a double rifle for some yrs now, in the drawing board stage as of yet, but refined enough now to go forward with a soft metal shop prototype to obtain a pattern for the parts.
This type double rifle is, like the bolt action double rifle by Fusch, it will not sell well, because of it's very un-treditional looks, no matter how strong it is! My design is a more treditional in looks, and in the way it works! We will see later this summer!
| 450_366 |
| (.400 member) |
| 22/02/09 09:05 AM |
|
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Quote:Quote:
Hmm
The double rolling block seems the best double rifle action to have........!!!
Time someone made this, the looks are A-OK to me........and the gun would take any cals/loads.......no?
Just a thought!
Ben
A rolling block action is very springy, and doesn't handle pressure well! I think what you might mean is a FALLING BLOCK ! A falling block double rifle like the Ruger No1 is strong as anything chambered for a sporting cartridge.
It would take some re-design to be a workable double rifle, but could be done! I've been working on a re-design of the basic Ruger No1 into a double rifle for some yrs now, in the drawing board stage as of yet, but refined enough now to go forward with a soft metal shop prototype to obtain a pattern for the parts.
This type double rifle is, like the bolt action double rifle by Fusch, it will not sell well, because of it's very un-treditional looks, no matter how strong it is! My design is a more treditional in looks, and in the way it works! We will see later this summer!
I have seen a picture somewhere on a falling block double but cant find it, it was made 100 years ago that i remember.
| empirevr |
| (.375 member) |
| 22/02/09 05:57 PM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Yes falling block of course!-sorry I was reading something when I posted. the photo is on here! micksguns has it up for sale.
Best
Ben
| doubleriflejack |
| (.333 member) |
| 08/04/09 05:09 AM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
SXS answered this question well, and it should be noted that, on a sxs double that is on face, one will always find small space, say .003 to .006, between barrel flats and watertable; THAT IS NORMAL, as noted by sxs, while no space should be found between barrel ends and standing breech.
| Brithunter |
| (.300 member) |
| 07/12/11 07:54 AM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Oh you mean like one of these:-
http://www.bradshawgunandrifle.com/Farquharson_Double_Rifle_1B.php
Double Farquharson rifle brand new made to your specs......
You should see the dinky SxS in 22 Hornet he made. Read the story of it being made with the photos down to forging the damascus billet to make the action out of.
| DarylS |
| (.700 member) |
| 08/12/11 04:37 AM |
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Oh YES! DR falling block - by Bailey Bradshaw. This is SPECTACULAR! I'm in lust. Check out that pop-up ghost ring peep.
| bonanza |
| (.400 member) |
| 08/12/11 07:22 AM |
|
|
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
I perform two measurements.
1) I support the rifle by the muzzle and stock then using a feeler gauge see if I can slip a .001" between the breach face and standing breach. You should not.
2) I open the action then close it on a .001" feeler. It should not be able to be pulled free.
I also like to wobble the forend to check for play. There should not be any.
| doubleriflejack |
| (.333 member) |
| 08/12/11 08:15 AM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Getting back to the initial question asked here by armbar, yes, sxs answered it well, and I have also found that what bonanza had to say about using a standard feeler gauge of .001" thickness to check on/off face condition is very practical, much better than using a piece of paper to do the same thing, because some folks simply cannot assess the situation well by "eye" without using such a feeler gauge, which is practically a foolproof method. Remember too, that when gun is on face, you will normally have a small gap of around .003", maybe .004" or so between watertable and barrel flats, at base of standing breech--barrel flats should NEVER be touching the watertable at that point.
| brosteve |
| (.224 member) |
| 18/08/12 01:05 PM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Question: When a gun goes off-face, does it stretch the dollshead? Wouldn't that seem to be a requisite for movement. If so, would it have to be repaired, and how? Steve
| kamilaroi |
| (.400 member) |
| 18/08/12 07:49 PM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Yet no-one to date has spoken of sideclips.
| MikeRowe |
| (.333 member) |
| 19/08/12 04:03 AM |
|
Re: "On Face?'
|
Brosteve
I recently saw a gun with the dollshead cracked at it's neck, because the gun had been let go so far of the face.
It is imperative to watch the joint condition of these old guns and rifles closely, and take remedial action at the first signs of looseness. If not, the potential damage increases exponentially with more use.