Mickey,
Thank you for the response. What you said makes total sense to me. I just chambered my first barrel a couple of weeks ago(thunderous applause erupts), and used the chuck/steady/tailstock method, as I have a big lathe and the barrel was for an XP-100. My steady has the brass pads also, but I stayed on that steady like a bum on a balogna sandwich throughout the fitting/chambering process. I had done enough prior experimenting with old barrels to know that if you don't, you'll start hearing "clack-clack-clack"...which would be mildy disconcerting when one is trying to do precision fit/chamber job. I must have done it right/got lucky as my Interapid tenth indicator showed about a tenth runout in the chamber when it was all said and done. I then immediately began engineering a roller bearing retrofit for my steady. However, I will probably sell my current lathe and purchase something smaller, which would allow through the headstock chambering. Both chambering methods might turn out equaly accurate rifles, but the through the headstock method, to me, appears to be the way to go. It is rigid, and one does not have to worry about the variables of the steady rest and tailstock. Plus, it is basically single set up machining...which if one wants dead nuts, that is the way to go, IMHO.
Thanks,
Justin
