Im all for reaming and chamfering because i saw a difference between a stock cylinder that had no chamfer and one with chamfer...then i tested a chamfered against a chamfered with .003 over groove diameter reamed chamber. The chamfered and chamfered with reamed cylinder outperformed the stock cylinder using the same load and bullet/ball. I also got more fps as well. I used pietta .36 cal 1851 and 1861 sheriff model using Old Eynsford powder (with weighed loads starting at 15 grains going up one grain until stopping at 21 grains) with a .375 round ball, 380 round ball, .377 wide 140 grain kaido conical, and my own custom designed .380 wide .36 cal bullet from accurate molds that is basically a tapered REAL bullet. When comparing the fps and accuracy the combinations always favored the chamfered and reamed cylinders. I also tried it with and without card and lube disc and it also showed that it helped with deviation, speed, and accuracy and came to the conclusion that it must be due to the card and thin lube disk (not lubed felt wad) helped seal the edges around the back of the bullet and prevented gas cutting and loss of pressure. I also got the same accuracy results conparing roundball to kaido conicals in a .36 cal that Mike Belleview got in a video of his pietta .36 model where he compared roundball, kaido conical, and pointed conical....the kaido conical severely outperformed both roundball and pointed conical. Thats why now all i shoot is kaido conicals or my own custom designs that are .250-.265 wide meplat conicals .480-.500 inches tall and .380 at the widest with a weight of 130-140 grains...ive found this to be the sweet spot for my .36 cal bullet designs. After these tests i personally make sure to chamfer and if possible ream the chambers over groove diameter.
That's great and I respect your opinion about your results with your gun even though many details are missing.
I'm unsure about how you came to the conclusion that chamfering is the reason for your results, and how that can be extrapolated to apply to every other gun.
For example, if a person altered their forcing cone and did not have chamfering, would it improve accuracy to a higher or lesser degree compared to chamfering?
And then there's the issue of how to determine an improvement in accuracy, such as whether a machine rest was used in a windless tunnel or not.
And even then, there's an assumption that powder charges can be duplicated exactly each and every time since even if the weight is the same powder compression can vary, and that the barrel condition as to fouling and temperature remains at a constant.
There's anecdotal evidence and then there's scientific evidence that controls for methodology.
And that's also not including the generalizations that are being made across the board for all guns when no 2 guns necessarily have the same specifications about chamber dimensions, bore dimension, barrel-cylinder gap, forcing cone dimensions, rifling depth, twist, crown concentricty, chamber alignment etc....
As I mentioned in my post above, there's a lot of room for reasonable doubt.
More than anything I would hate to mislead people that any one way is absolutely better than another.
This began about only chamfering and not about reaming, gas cutting and Kaido bullets.
But to be honest, perhaps not every gun or make has similar forcing cone dimensions, and not all guns are Colts.
If you didn't notice, the topic of the thread was about Colt Walkers and which size ball is preferred.
And then it naturally progressed to chamfering and how doing that displaces lead when the ball is rammed.
With chamfering, the lead is displaced forward which wasn't mentioned, but improved engagement of the rifling was.
However, that begs the question of why would a ball with forward lead displacement be more accurate than a ball with a hair shaved off it, as little as a .001.
Even with chamfering, the projectile will still be swagged into the chamber of the same relative diameter,or will each chamber be different and not even line up at the same exact angle on every gun so as to be able to even draw such a conclusion regarding accuracy.
And your gun is not even the same caliber as the Walker or from the same maker.
My point is that generalizations are not easy to prove, and we've been down this road before regarding chamfering on another thread where it was recommended.
I think that it's a great topic and maybe a new thread can be started about it.
But the same questions about proof and methodology will still be there for me.
Just because I mentioned my doubts doesn't mean that chamfering isn't beneficial for some guns, but that wouldn't mean that every gun will always benefit from it.
Or that your method of chamfering is the same as everyone else's who wants to do home chamfering.
And that's another whole can of worms, what exactly is chamfering and how is it properly done?
I don't want to see people misled into thinking that all guns are the same, all chamfering is the same, all forcing cones are the same, Remingtons will benefit the same from chamfering as do Colts, or Piettas will benefit as much as an Uberti or Ruger, or that all chambers line up the same.
I think that it's important to closely examine the details of general recommendations and to not leave any issues hidden by not closely examining their validity.
Once someone makes generalizations and another questions it based on methodology or whatever, to go on about it as proof without the details and then including even more variables proves nothing.
I think that discussion about chamfering is intended to appeal to people as something that they should do or else they're missing out on something when that hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Some companies used to do it, and some don't and never have.
It's possible that homemade chamfering can cause more harm than good.
It displaces lead but the internal chamber diameter remains the same.
I still don't know if displacing lead forward is beneficial for every type and shape of projectile.
Do you?
I can't say that I believe anything about its claimed benefits.
When a person gunsmiths their gun, that can alter more than one factory specification that can lead to other changes such as barrel cylinder gap, chamber alignment or whatever.
I don't know if what you may do to your gun can be duplicated by anyone else so that they can be sure of obtaining the same result.
Thus my apprehension about believing blanket statements being made about any type of modifications that don't include important disclaimers and full disclosure of details which are lacking in your posts about chamfering.
Chamfering is claimed to be more accurate, but how much more accurate and at what distance are important missing details.
And all of the other missing details just lead to more and more questions and doubts.
I could never test the accuracy of a .22 target pistol with different ammos without at least mounting some kind of a scope on it.