Lightweight Rifle Build - Carbon and Titanium

[treillw]

Looking at building a light weight .300 win mag. Will be used for hunting and shooting steel for fun. Long range accuracy is very important. I want the gun to be as accurate as possible, but not break the 9lb mark by much at an absolute maximum. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a carbon barrel and a titanium action? Suggestions on actions? From what I've heard, proof seems to be who to go with for a barrel.

Thanks!

 

[Fast14riot]

What about just a shorter barrel?

 

[drover]

The only issue may be cost. Titanium actions and carbon barrels are both very expensive, I can see that you may easily end up with over $3000 or more in the build depending on your choice of stock and gunsmith.

drover

 

[Bill Bowers]

What about just a shorter barrel?

Check with Steve Boswell in Clear Spring, MD

Looking at building a light weight .300 win mag. Will be used for hunting and shooting steel for fun. Long range accuracy is very important. I want the gun to be as accurate as possible, but not break the 9lb mark by much at an absolute maximum. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a carbon barrel and a titanium action? Suggestions on actions? From what I've heard, proof seems to be who to go with for a barrel.

Thanks!

Check out Steve Boswell. He is doing super light rifles like you describe.

http://boswellscustomrifles.com/

Bill Bowers

 

[Barrel Nut]

Bryan Litz did extensive testing of carbon barrels and published the results in his latest book. Based on that, I think they might be OK for hunting, but not worth it for target shooting. Of course, hunting and shooting steel are two different things. I don't shoot God's little furry creatures anymore, but if I did I would want to carry the lightest weapon I could find. And if it were a 300 Win mag, I would want a one-shot kill for sure because of recoil considerations.

But I were to shoot steel for fun, I would want the heaviest legal gun I could build, again because of recoil issues, especially if I decided to give F-class a try. Shooting 20 rounds in a short period of time and doing that three times in a morning would get REAL tiresome with a 300 Win mag. Even shooting steel for fun would seem to be a problem unless you define fun as firing two or three rounds.

But if you heart is set on a ultra light 300 Win mag, why not buy a medium profile barrel, not too long, and build a lightweight stock. I just built an F/TR stock from off-the-shelf carbon fiber components and had to add 3 pounds of ballast to come up to weight. I did it with a 6" disc sander, a table top miniature band saw, and hand tools. Took me a week of spare time. A hunting rifle would be a little different, but you could certainly do something similar based on a carbon fiber tube.

SKELETON GUN

 

[butchlambert]

Stay away from the carbon wrapped barrel mfor two reasons.
#1 not as accurate as a SS or CM barrel
#2 a light barrel is hard to keep steady when shooting offhand
I built mine with a Pierce Ti receiver, LW Douglas barrel, and had Brown Precision do a custom Kevlar stock and bed it to my rifle. Mine is 280AI.

 

[Dans40X]

As Butch quoted
OR
Jim Borden will build you a lightweight rifle to accomplish both your desires.

 

[civil82]

I don't have any number on titanium action weights in front of me, but I had a 700LA (stainless) with a Douglas 5A contour (~27"+brake) put in a High Tech specialties stock (23oz.). Weight is about 8lbs., 9 with Talley rings and Leupold 4.5-14x40 MKIV. shouldnt be hard for you to hit much less weight than what you're after with carbon and titanium...

 

[butchlambert]

I don't have any number on titanium action weights in front of me, but I had a 700LA (stainless) with a Douglas 5A contour (~27"+brake) put in a High Tech specialties stock (23oz.). Weight is about 8lbs., 9 with Talley rings and Leupold 4.5-14x40 MKIV. shouldnt be hard for you to hit much less weight than what you're after with carbon and titanium...

A Pierce is 16oz lighter than a 700.

 

[Robert]

A Pierce is 16oz lighter than a 700.

Butch,
Based on metal densitiesdifference, and supposing the 2 actions are similar, the Rem 700 receiver should then weight 34.6oz and the Ti o,ne 18.6oz.

Siupposing same receiver made from 7075 light metal with necessary steel hardened inserts, a further 4oz reduction could be envisaged.

R.G.C
c-g-designs.blog4ever.com

 

[Barrel Nut]

Butch,
Based on metal densitiesdifference, and supposing the 2 actions are similar, the Rem 700 receiver should then weight 34.6oz and the Ti o,ne 18.6oz.

Siupposing same receiver made from 7075 light metal with necessary steel hardened inserts, a further 4oz reduction could be envisaged.

R.G.C
c-g-designs.blog4ever.com

True,.............. but why do it? Titanium has good corrosion resistance and good strength at elevated temperatures when compared with aluminum. That's why the SR-71 aircraft is mostly titanium. But the SR-71 is not something you'll likely see at your local gun range.

Generally speaking, the typical aircraft alloy of titanium is difficult to machine. Titanium is also not as strong as many steels on a strength-to-weight basis, so a Titanium receiver would have more volume than a steel receiver and, most likely, be heavier. Plus it's expensive and a DIY gun guy will probably be shopping for a chunk too good for some aerospace company to toss in the trash bin, but since this stuff isn't usually sold at the local Ace hardware, the exact alloy is not something you can get too picky about.

I'm not privy to the exact design requirements for a safe receiver and I suspect most of the ones we see on the firing line are well over built. But where they are overly strong and by how much is the question, especially when someone who owns a mill and a lathe decides to make one out of alternative materials. When the goal is to make one really really light, you may find your normal flinch getting worse when you pull the trigger on a hot load.

Furthermore, while hunters like light weapons when it comes to marching around the woods, studies show that guns which are too light are more difficult to aim properly. Of course, when it comes to bench rest or F-class style shooting, weight isn't an issue since heavier is generally regarded as better and the rules set the maximum weight plenty high enough. In other words, there is no 2 pound rifle class, at least that I know of.

So my question is, why go to extreme lengths to use a material which may not actually be suitable for the task when the end result (a very light gun) may not be as good as a heavier one? Plus, the weight savings for a light receiver isn't all that great in the first place. Reducing the barrel length and/or diameter would yield more weight reduction and the effects on accuracy and safety are well understood. And barrels of most any size and shape are available at good prices.

I suppose if you needed to take a gun to mars, an exotic receiver might be a good approach, but otherwise, I don't quite get it when it comes to making exotic receivers.

 

[butchlambert]

True,.............. but why do it? Titanium has good corrosion resistance and good strength at elevated temperatures when compared with aluminum. That's why the SR-71 aircraft is mostly titanium. But the SR-71 is not something you'll likely see at your local gun range.

Generally speaking, the typical aircraft alloy of titanium is difficult to machine. Titanium is also not as strong as many steels on a strength-to-weight basis, so a Titanium receiver would have more volume than a steel receiver and, most likely, be heavier. Plus it's expensive and a DIY gun guy will probably be shopping for a chunk too good for some aerospace company to toss in the trash bin, but since this stuff isn't usually sold at the local Ace hardware, the exact alloy is not something you can get too picky about.

I'm not privy to the exact design requirements for a safe receiver and I suspect most of the ones we see on the firing line are well over built. But where they are overly strong and by how much is the question, especially when someone who owns a mill and a lathe decides to make one out of alternative materials. When the goal is to make one really really light, you may find your normal flinch getting worse when you pull the trigger on a hot load.

Furthermore, while hunters like light weapons when it comes to marching around the woods, studies show that guns which are too light are more difficult to aim properly. Of course, when it comes to bench rest or F-class style shooting, weight isn't an issue since heavier is generally regarded as better and the rules set the maximum weight plenty high enough. In other words, there is no 2 pound rifle class, at least that I know of.

So my question is, why go to extreme lengths to use a material which may not actually be suitable for the task when the end result (a very light gun) may not be as good as a heavier one? Plus, the weight savings for a light receiver isn't all that great in the first place. Reducing the barrel length and/or diameter would yield more weight reduction and the effects on accuracy and safety are well understood. And barrels of most any size and shape are available at good prices.

I suppose if you needed to take a gun to mars, an exotic receiver might be a good approach, but otherwise, I don't quite get it when it comes to making exotic receivers.

So my Pierce receiver is heavier than a steel 700? I guess my scales are goofy.
Robert, you are right on the aluminum receiver. Kinda like the Kelbly aluminum receivers.

 

[savagedasher]

One thing it would be comfortable to carry but I don't know about the recoil Larry

 

[wedgy]

Ryan's 28 Noslers come in at 7.5-9lbs with much less recoil...and probably barrel life as well.

http://www.piercisionrifles.com/28-noslers-coming-soon/

 

[butchlambert]

Ryan's 28 Noslers come in at 7.5-9lbs with much less recoil...and probably barrel life as well.

http://www.piercisionrifles.com/28-noslers-coming-soon/

Not in stock yet and not a very good carry around rifle.

 

[ryanjay11]

I had this put together last year. It sounds similar to what you are wanting. It shoots .25 MOA and weighs 9.5 lbs scoped. You could easily be at 9 lbs with a lighter scope/rings.

300 WSM: Norma Brass, 200 Hornady ELD-X, 68.5 grains H4831SC, BR2 Primer, 3.125" COAL
Defiance Deviant UL XM length
Proof Research 24" Sendero w/ Badger Ordnance Brake
Jewell Trigger
Manners EH1 Stock
Nightforce ATACR F1 4-16x 42mm

 

[butchlambert]

I had this put together last year. It sounds similar to what you are wanting. It shoots .25 MOA and weighs 9.5 lbs scoped. You could easily be at 9 lbs with a lighter scope/rings.

300 WSM: Norma Brass, 200 Hornady ELD-X, 68.5 grains H4831SC, BR2 Primer, 3.125" COAL
Defiance Deviant UL XM length
Proof Research 24" Sendero w/ Badger Ordnance Brake
Jewell Trigger
Manners EH1 Stock
Nightforce ATACR F1 4-16x 42mm

So you are saying it shoots .25moa everytime or the old "when I do my part" or it has shot that a couple times.

 

[Robert]

True,.............. but why do it? Titanium has good corrosion resistance and good strength at elevated temperatures when compared with aluminum. That's why the SR-71 aircraft is mostly titanium. But the SR-71 is not something you'll likely see at your local gun range.

Generally speaking, the typical aircraft alloy of titanium is difficult to machine. Titanium is also not as strong as many steels on a strength-to-weight basis, so a Titanium receiver would have more volume than a steel receiver and, most likely, be heavier. Plus it's expensive and a DIY gun guy will probably be shopping for a chunk too good for some aerospace company to toss in the trash bin, but since this stuff isn't usually sold at the local Ace hardware, the exact alloy is not something you can get too picky about.

I'm not privy to the exact design requirements for a safe receiver and I suspect most of the ones we see on the firing line are well over built. But where they are overly strong and by how much is the question, especially when someone who owns a mill and a lathe decides to make one out of alternative materials. When the goal is to make one really really light, you may find your normal flinch getting worse when you pull the trigger on a hot load.

Furthermore, while hunters like light weapons when it comes to marching around the woods, studies show that guns which are too light are more difficult to aim properly. Of course, when it comes to bench rest or F-class style shooting, weight isn't an issue since heavier is generally regarded as better and the rules set the maximum weight plenty high enough. In other words, there is no 2 pound rifle class, at least that I know of.

So my question is, why go to extreme lengths to use a material which may not actually be suitable for the task when the end result (a very light gun) may not be as good as a heavier one? Plus, the weight savings for a light receiver isn't all that great in the first place. Reducing the barrel length and/or diameter would yield more weight reduction and the effects on accuracy and safety are well understood. And barrels of most any size and shape are available at good prices.

I suppose if you needed to take a gun to mars, an exotic receiver might be a good approach, but otherwise, I don't quite get it when it comes to making exotic receivers.

Butch,
The popular Stolle action was and I presume is still made from 7075 light metal alloy with a bolting/barrel holder insert or interface.

Such an insert can be made from hi-strengh tool steel and is important as interface able to maintaun oressures. The rest ofthe receiver need only rigidity. A former german maker even had it made from Stellite!!.

Ti is for me not really suited for receivers.

RGC

 

[gunsandgunsmithing]

A 9lb rifle doesn't require carbon and titanium, to build. A light stock and standard components...and you're there with room to spare.

 

[ryanjay11]

So you are saying it shoots .25moa everytime or the old "when I do my part" or it has shot that a couple times.

If you choose to believe this rifle isn't what I say it is, go for it. Feel free to try and run my name down while you are at it.