The rockers are bushed. I honed them until they rotated freely.
This ideally is where the oil leakage rate should be controlled! And if you were given the rockers with bushings being undersized (GREAT!

) this allowing the opportunity to limit the otherwise generally experienced 'excessive' clearances between the shaft and rockers then restrictors wouldn't be necessary, particularly for a "street" engine.

We've built many FE road-course type engines; and in particularly the "F.I.A." legal types, these requiring "stock-type" rocker-arms, and in the past we would utilize the Crane Cams "Ductile Iron" adjustable units (N.A

) which I have bored, pressed and sized (properly

) bronze bushings for a clearance of .0005" or less (we have run .0003"), this vs. the as otherwise commonly received .0015" (and that would be rare to encounter

) to .003" (these still being considered "GOOD"!

), and don't ask about "used" stuff

; and in these instances an .080" restrictor only acts as an oil loss control safety feature, if a rocker arm or the shaft breaks, but the shaft 'is' pressurized and there is no "excessive" leakage (as some 'is' required!

) and there isn't starvation of some and certainly reduces instances of burnt pushrod adjusters & cups!
But, I'm not saying that "restrictors" aren't a good idea and even necessary in some instances and you really don't want to "flood" the under-valve-cover area, but I think they are excessively relied upon as a crutch; and if your already pumping the oil (it's a "positive-displacement" pump and also excessive bypassing within the pump creates other issues

) then you might as well utilize it!

Scott.