Taylor Throating Incident

[Boge]

A buddy & I had at trying to Taylor throat my new Ruger .44 Spcl. and had an eye opening experience. Firstly, the frame window is too small for the cutter head to insert into the bore. He ground down the other end a tad & we got it inserted only to find out it's too big for the bore!! :shock: The cutter head was the same diam. as the barrel's bore diam. 0.419. :roll: Scrap that plan. We then slugged the barrel and it was right at 0.430 so it looks like no barrel constriction.

The only way to Taylor throat the .44 Spcl. is to dismount the barrel and use a pilot reamer beforehand IMO. Oh well, I slugged my other Ruger .44 Spcl. and it slugged the same. The chambers however are right at 0.432 so I use 0.431 bullets.

 

[flatgate]

Uh, well, did'ja just "shoot" the gun with a variety of loads prior to trying to "fix that which might not be broke"?

Do you understand what "Taylor Throating" really is?

flatgate

 

[Boge]

Yes Flatgate, I know it is controversial for some BUT I have seen with my OWN two eyes the miracle that it does on many guns. Two local fellas (one is a 'smith) swear by it and do it to all their revolvers. I have seen their before & after results and it almost always makes a difference for the better. Yes, I know there are those that disagree but the bullseye doesn't lie. I have never seen Taylor throating make a revolver shoot worse. :wink:

 

[Pinecone]

Boge, Taylor throating is actually deepening the forceing cone "radically"! With Taylor throating you loose velocity (gas blow-by) and usually have a lot of gap spitting. Simply reaming the forceing cone to 11 degrees is a much better solution without the added problems and you enhance accuracy just as much, and in most cases, even better. In my opinion, Taylor throating is overrated when there is a much better option. The 11 degree reamer! As you have already found out, there are "space" problems in getting the reamer positioned right, often the top strap is the culprit. As flatgate noted, if it ain't broke, why are you fixing it?......................Dick :wink:

 

[Boge]

I did not post this to debate the merits of the process. Read my words carefully: I HAVE SEEN OBEJECTIVE RESULTS and my vote is for it. I could give a damn less about velocity loss. Accuracy is important. Have you guys ever seen IN PERSON an objective comparison of before & after with this process? I have. My eyes don't lie. I have read the negatives on the Internet and they are almost always by people theorizing and have never had the process done let alone shot a gun with it.

 

[flatgate]

I've discussed this procedure with Jim Taylor, who's Father developed the process. It's NOT a "end all", however it does have merit. It's worth a try when dealing with an uncooperative revolver.

IMHO, it can "fix" a "dog" of a barrel so it shoots "OK". Again, IMHO, a "tack driver" results when each and every component of the mechanism is of superior quality.

Now, this is JUST my opinion and my observations. We all know that in the quest for a "perfect" firearm there exists a seemingly infinite series of variables that are trying their best to "screw up" our best efforts.

YMMV,

flatgate

 

[Pinecone]

flatgate, that was well thought out and said! Remember Boge, your on an internet forum! Your going to get many different "slants" on this subject. There is an awful lot of experience on this forum. Yes, many of us have seen the results and have actually done this process. I have also seen how others have screwed up their guns royally trying to make them better! In the end, your going to do what you want to do anyway which is as it should be. Don't get your shorts in a knot!...................Dick :wink:

 

[Boge]

I have seen the process done to many revolvers. Not one shot worse and all cast bullets better. And your experiences?

 

[Pinecone]

My experiences Boge? Just read my 1052 posts. Enough said on that subject. Since "you" seem to have it all worked out and need the last word on this subject, go ahead and have it!......................Dick :wink:

 

[foxtrapper]

Pine cone you wrote Taylor throating causes "blow by" ? I don't know what to say :shock:

 

[Pinecone]

foxtrapper, With a deep radically pitched cone, a portion of the gas pushing the bullet will flow around the bullet and ahead giving lower velocity along with leading which is pealed off the bullet. As flatgate mentioned, with a highly corrupt cone, some people are willing to accept one fault to correct another. With any kind of forceing cone reaming, the results are going to vary "some" from one gun to another because of the other "variables" involved. For any of you folks, if Taylor throating trips your trigger, go for it!.....................Dick :wink:

 

[Boxhead]

Only one piece that I have experience with and it is a custom S&W 45 Colt that Jim Stroh put together for me. No before or after as it was a 44 Mag but the piece is the most accurate DA I own. I would really like to put it in a Ransom and see what 50 and 100 yard groups would be. I have zero issues with leading shooting the 270 SAA cast at 12 BNH at 950 fps

 

[foxtrapper]

What fault would one overlook allowing, not just allowing but modifying a gun to cause leading? Leading, one of the most accuracy killing conditions a gun could have.

 

[Pinecone]

foxtrapper, Your assuming every gun is going to be worse off with Taylor throating. That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that some guns will not profit from it and others may be just fine. You won't know for sure until it is done and you check "your" gun to find out. What I am saying is that since it is a "radical" procedure, I recommend the 11 degree procedure which is a lot less radical and does fine with virtually all revolvers barring that the barrel/chamber alignment is not radically way off.....................Dick :wink:

 

[Boge]

My experiences Boge? Just read my 1052 posts. Enough said on that subject. Since "you" seem to have it all worked out and need the last word on this subject, go ahead and have it!......................Dick :wink:

No, I don't have it all worked out nor do I have a thousand posts. Whatever the hell that has to do with anything. :roll: I only know what I saw and what two others have related to me who have performed this on several revolvers. Maybe someday I will see a lemon. As for now I have not so I am inclined to believe what I have seen. Perhaps you have seen more revolvers done using this process than we three combined. Perhaps not. You do what works for you. :wink:

 

[cas6969]

There's a lot of debate and controversy surrounding Taylor throating. A LARGE part of that controversy stems from the fact that half the people don't know what they're talking about. :lol: Meaning half of the people you talk to about it call one thing Taylor throating that isn't. Add that into the mix and you're bound to get controversy.

I had one long heated discussion with a gunsmith about it. I couldn't get through to him... "What you're describing isn't Taylor Throating". :roll:

 

[Bisley Bud]

You are right on Cas. Some folks don't know a taylor throat. Has nothing to do with the forcing cone, and won't cause blow by unless cut too deep. Just because a fella has a bunch of posts don't make him an expert. Just means he spends a lot of time with fingers on a keyboard.= less time with the same fingers wrapped around a revolver grip. My experience with Taylor throating agrees with Boge's, always improved accuracy.

For a lesson on Taylor throating read this.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ross-seyfried-lipseys-ruger-flattop-44-special-bisley-revolvers/

Written by a man that has more experience on the subject than all of us combined.

 

[flatgate]

Thanks for the link! Ross definitely knows!

flatgate

 

[Pinecone]

Bisley Bud wrote: Taylor throating has nothing to do with the forcing cone! Evidently "you" have never had a Taylor reamer in "your" hands! You johnny-come-latelies seem to have the whole gun world figured out. Go back and do your "homework". It's what you learn after you know-it-all that counts! I don't claim to be the world's expert on guns, but after 44 + years of gunsmithing, I'm way ahead of you. The Taylor reamer which you seem to know all about, certainly does have something to do with the "forcing cone". It reams the forcing cone to 10 degrees along with a portion of the lead rifling. What I said above stands. It's still overrated. Evidently the manufacturer has quit making the reamers at this time. Wonder why?...............Dick :wink:

 

[cas6969]

None of that means the Clymer tool is made right. Mr. Taylor never used one.