I haven't seen many of them so I did one, just curious if you guys have any opinions about piloting a big pin.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Piloted 3/8-10 or 11 pins.
- Thread starter seahorse1877
- Start date
Old opinions
I was doing some research a week or so ago and there was a large agreement that the pilot did not effect the hit but only helped the alignment of the joint. My interest in the subject was to see which was better so that when I started making cues on a larger scale I would have the best quality possible. From what I read I am not sure that it is worth the extra work of piloting to the tight tolerances needed to make it affect the fit. If your thread sizes are tight enough they should hold the joint tight I would think.
If I miss read the older posts or if the opinions have changed please correct me as I am here to learn.
Allen
I was doing some research a week or so ago and there was a large agreement that the pilot did not effect the hit but only helped the alignment of the joint. My interest in the subject was to see which was better so that when I started making cues on a larger scale I would have the best quality possible. From what I read I am not sure that it is worth the extra work of piloting to the tight tolerances needed to make it affect the fit. If your thread sizes are tight enough they should hold the joint tight I would think.
If I miss read the older posts or if the opinions have changed please correct me as I am here to learn.
Allen
I had a cue a while back that had a radial pin with a pilot. Hit very well but the thing I didn't like was the fact that I could not get just any old radial shaft to work with it the pilot was too deep. If I were a cuemaker I think that fact would deter people from buying my product because they couldn't use aftermarket shafts such as predator or ob
Sent from my SCH-I100 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I100 using Tapatalk
Why do it? Less contact area and unless you make the pilot so tight you can hardly screw the cue together it is useless in my opinion. I can't think of one positive, maybe someone else can.
You have learned well grasshopper. The pilot does not affect hit.
As you have learned, the only purpose of the pilot is the alignment of the shaft.
Mac is also correct. Less contact area at the joint faces.
That doesn't mean that it can't be done. It just means that there is nothing to be gained.
I'm not going to 'rag' on the concept because I know of at least a couple of notable CMs
that do a big-pin pilot.
They are more than capable of determining for themselves what works best for them.
I will however, offer a question, solely for the purpose of stimulating thought.
With the advent of the .308" flat minor, is the pilot on a big pin even necessary?
Doesn't the shaft, by virtue of design, automatically align itself on the pin?
In today's world, the pilot has become passe'.
KJ
I whole heartedly agree KJ. The large pin will align itself very well, otherwise McDermott and others, would be redesigning it's whole line
. Why would a cue with any pin, need an alignment shoulder that can be subject to bumps, dirt, humidity, etc. which can make alignment even harder, than easier, IMO. If you build a cue and follow the proper steps, the wood won't move and neither will the joint. I have found that even with the pilot, if things move due to nature, or human.... not everything will line up afterwards without changing/altering the pilot to get it all realigned, just my experiences. On a seperate note, 98.9% of production cues with an alignment pilot, most play no part in the assembly of a cue due to the pilot being smaller than the space alloted in the collar. Use a caliper and check.....I have only seen a small few that even come close to the same size. So what's the point then???? Then there are the wood pilots which tend to swell or shrink to the seasons, unless they are made undersize, which also defeats the purpose of the pilot in the first place. It sounds like a good idea, but in the real world, does it really help or hinder, or is it more of a selling point that really means nothing???
Just my observations and thoughts,
Dave
Ray Schuler designed a piloted joint that has an interference fit inside the butt side of the joint. By doing that, it stiffens the joint and moves any side stresses off of the pin. It's probably overkill, but I like it enough to use it on my own cues. Yes, it's a pain in the ass.
The concept behind the Schuler joint was not for better function, it was so shafts would be interchangeable. You could just call him and get any one of a bunch or tapers he made and the shaft would fit. He did not need to make a shaft for your cue they were all interchangeable and all had the same black collar on the shaft. If you think about it, that little aluminum connection can't add any more, if as much, rigidity or strength to the joint then say a thick radial pin once assembled. In fact the outside threading on the Schuler insert was rather fine. I don't know how many I have fixed where it pulled out and the guy would bring me the shaft and butt with the insert stuck in the butt and an empty hole in the shaft where the insert used to be.
Last edited:
The reason to use a pilot is to maintain the strength and alignment that 1" of thread contact on the joint pin affords but reduce the length of the butt when disassembled. If you would like to use a case instead of a rubber band, the longer the cue the more important it is unless you always make the shaft 1" longer than the butt. It is not a gimmick, just a different way of accomplishing the same thing but maintaining the 50/50 split.
I don't really understand what you said.
He used a small 5/16 pin though.
Does an stainless steel 3/8 pin need any help ?
If the stainless steel pin needs help, then what will help the wooden cue parts????:yikes:
I stand by my earlier statement, I think a pilot is useless and only a selling point that sounds good, but delivers nothing benifical. It won't stop the shaft from warping, and if the pilot gets damaged from dropping the shaft or dirt, etc. then it won't fit....or may make the shaft look warped (had this once) if it was even sized right to fit exactly to begin with.
Just did a repair on a 'players' cue that had a pilot.....15 thou. undersized pilot, what good does it do? The 5/16x18 pin height was still a full inch from the collar so there wasn't even the benefit of a shorter pin.
JMO.
Dave
According to Ray, the concept for the joint was to improve rigidity at the joint while keeping weight to a minimum. Interchangeability was a side benefit.
Not wishing to be argumentative but I knew him since the early 80's and saw him at the shows and numerous tournaments for years usually billiard tournaments and he was always touting the interchangeability of shafts. Billiards players often own a dozen shafts or more. You didn't have to send back the butt, you could buy shafts from him or even trade with other owners of his cues, use shafts from another of your Schuler cues and they all fit. I know a lot of guys who got new cues for a different look but used their favorite old shafts they may have used for years. He emphasized it all the time, It even appears in most all of his advertising and brochures. I have one in front of me and it says,
"Every shaft we make fits every butt we make, a unique concept with universal application......unique with the Schuler cue."
It also stresses all the different tapers then mentions interchangeability again.
I don't know what to tell you, he believed in his joint but there are a few things about it that are easy to take exception with.
The very few number threads that engaged, the hollow screw that ofter broke off, the insert that often pulled out, sometimes it took two people to get the cue apart or you never got it screwed together in the first place it was so tight. Then you have the famous "Schuler rattle" they would very often develop and you would have to send the cue back to be fixed. If you ever mentioned anything about a cue or even asked a question he would tell you to buy a cue from someone else. He had one way of thinking and I don't think it ever evolved the whole time he made cues.
I have a feeling if you are using the same concepts you have done a few improvements. His weighting system was kind of cool though. He made me a cue to play pool years ago and after giving it an honest try for a few months, I ran into him and talked about the cue. I mentioned that I didn't think many of the billiard concepts carried over into the pool cue market he was trying to enter, he had to redesign the cue a bit. Beyond making the shaft with a long taper the cue was just a billiard cue. It had no feel playing straight pool, you could not feel the cue ball at all. I could not run 50 balls with that cue and my game got worse by the day every day I played with it. He could care less, he just turned away from me and that was it. Kind of a strange guy in many ways.
Last edited:
I knew him from the early 90s and sold cues for him for a while. The impression I got was that he was quite happy with the interchangeability of the shafts, but the main reason he designed his joint was to get a solid connection with minimal weight to improve balance and and to provide a firm hit. Your impression of 'feel' is your own. My opinion is the opposite. I have no problem moving the cue ball around with my Schuler. Some love them, some hate them. I don't see how it was his fault that you played worse with his cue and I'm sure he saw it the same way. There's some things you can fix. The rest has to take care of itself. Buddy Hall had no problems playing with one, nor does Robert Byrne or Fran Crimi. Personally, I don't like playing with flexible cues. Some people love them and play great with them.
My cue was probably one of the first cues he did for pool as he tried to expand into the pool market. It was essentially just one of his billiard cues with a long taper. The joint was still in the neighborhood of .875 and provided almost no feedback. The interesting thing was, you could make all kinds of tough long shots but up close it had none of the nuance you need to play straight pool or one pocket. He may very well have redesigned a few things later to suit his cues more to pool.
You mentioned Robert Byrne in the present tense and it prompted me to look him up and I was surprised to see he is still alive. I don't know why but I had thought he had died some time back. I think I was mixing him up with Ned Polsky in thinking he had died. Mr Byrne is a billiard player though. The billiard market was always where Schuler had the greatest acceptance. Sang Lee often played with a Schuler although he most often used a Helmstetter. I didn't mean to make any derogatory comments but after making the post I went out to the shop and sure enough I still had some old Schuler inserts I had replaced still around. When you set one next to a standard insert the difference is quite dramatic. One would have to wonder why he chose to stay with an insert with such fine O.D. threads. Ever the internal threads only extend about then half the length of the insert making a very suspect connection.
In case someone does not know what I am referring to here is a Schuler insert next to a standard inserts found in most cues.
