Proof research barrels

[alinwa]

Sometimes I laugh about the lengths people go to save weight. For a lot of folk a few inches around the waistline would be a better proposition.

Not that I can make claims in that area...

Kind of like overweight sportsbike riders buying alloy accessories to save a lb or 2 on their bikes. Drop twenty pounds in that game and it will make a big difference.

I do understand the desirability of a light rifle when on foot in the mountains though.

BUT!!!

Here's how I think...... (I know, I know, alla' you'se that don't care how I think, DON'T READ IT!! LOL)

About 15-18yrs ago there were 'YUGE a'scussions and arguments and flamewars on the subject of "moly"....

In fact you can STILL get a war going with moly if you try hard, the subject has been banned in some instances BUT!!


but, but, but...... here's why I bring it up.

I remember one of the huge areas of disagreement was "frequency of cleaning"....... guys were saying "we now go 30-50 even a HUNNER'T shoots between cleanings!!!" So ME.... the ever-argumentative dumbass..... started asking the question "Well, have you ever tried going 30-50 even A HUNNER'T! with nekkid bullets?


Now, on the subject of wrapped barrels I see guys saying "but they shoot really good... for what's required of them" and then a lot of folks start claiming they shoot "better".....


And I'm ASKIN' Y'alls...... how many of you have recently spooled up a MATCH-GRADE skinny barrel on a high-grade build and really, I mean REALLY checked it for accuracy? I'm stating that regardless how many folks we've got Pining For The Fjords, lamenting "The Good Ol' Days When We Could Still Get Good Barrels"....... I'm sorry to say, these barrels of today SHOOT GOOD!


REALLY good!


I'm just saying, weight-for-weight.....and you can put a regular barrel into a regular stock..... jus'sayin' again.....


(Now when someone comes on claiming "the cf wicks heat off faster than the barrel steel can bring it to the surface!!!!" I still have to walk away BUT...... I don't feel that's the thrust of this discussion...)

 

[Clancy]

BUT!!!

Here's how I think...... (I know, I know, alla' you'se that don't care how I think, DON'T READ IT!! LOL)

About 15-18yrs ago there were 'YUGE a'scussions and arguments and flamewars on the subject of "moly"....

In fact you can STILL get a war going with moly if you try hard, the subject has been banned in some instances BUT!!


but, but, but...... here's why I bring it up.

I remember one of the huge areas of disagreement was "frequency of cleaning"....... guys were saying "we now go 30-50 even a HUNNER'T shoots between cleanings!!!" So ME.... the ever-argumentative dumbass..... started asking the question "Well, have you ever tried going 30-50 even A HUNNER'T! with nekkid bullets?


Now, on the subject of wrapped barrels I see guys saying "but they shoot really good... for what's required of them" and then a lot of folks start claiming they shoot "better".....


And I'm ASKIN' Y'alls...... how many of you have recently spooled up a MATCH-GRADE skinny barrel on a high-grade build and really, I mean REALLY checked it for accuracy? I'm stating that regardless how many folks we've got Pining For The Fjords, lamenting "The Good Ol' Days When We Could Still Get Good Barrels"....... I'm sorry to say, these barrels of today SHOOT GOOD!


REALLY good!


I'm just saying, weight-for-weight.....and you can put a regular barrel into a regular stock..... jus'sayin' again.....


(Now when someone comes on claiming "the cf wicks heat off faster than the barrel steel can bring it to the surface!!!!" I still have to walk away BUT...... I don't feel that's the thrust of this discussion...)

It’s funny you asked.... I spent a lot of time with a #4 Brux in 6.5x47 and a #3.5 Shilen Select in 223. I mean, a LOT of time, as far as load development goes. I’ve always had this crazy, outlandish idea that if you wanted something to shoot like a BR rig, you’d better load like it too.

After all was said and done, there’s no doubt I’d want the Proof for a dual duty barrel.

I’m sure there’s folks out there that shoot their deer gun 3 times a year, but for those of us that hunt at distance (or at least enjoy the capability) the rifles get shot a lot. I’ve been going through a barrel a year on mine, which I’d say is a hell of a lot for a hunting rifle. Longer strings of fire didn’t work all that well with the light contour steel barrels, as you’d imagine.

 

[Ledd Slinger]

uhhhh..... here's the problem. Well, one of the problems with your contentions

STIFFER=SMALLER tuning windows.

Fact.

A stiffer barrel has narrower tuning windows.

Always has, always will. At least that's the PHYSICal explanation but, as per usual

"I Can Explain It To You But I Can't Understand It For You"

See, facts is funny things.....

Well then I suppose everyone on Bench rest and F-Class better take advantage of this new enlightenment you've shared and start outfitting their rifles with #2 contour barrels. Those damn Heavy Palma and Heavy Varmint contours are just too damn stiff to hold a tune

I think you might have your info confused with "rifle stocks"...Too stiff a stock is not always a good thing.

 

[alinwa]

Well then I suppose everyone on Bench rest and F-Class better take advantage of this new enlightenment you've shared and start outfitting their rifles with #2 contour barrels. Those damn Heavy Palma and Heavy Varmint contours are just too damn stiff to hold a tune

Nothing "new" here, just old established fact.


I had several phone conversations with Harold Vaughn before he passed.....he had enough work done, material in his files for two more books but he was so wrapped up in more experimenting that he just couldn't find the time. Interestingly enough, the area he most wanted to explore was HEAVY but FLOPPY barrels. When I spake with him he was looking for ways, trying things to bond lead to steel in the interest of cladding barrels in lead for exactly this reason. I strongly disagreed with the methodology, instead suggesting radial cuts with CNC equipment to make repeatable contours etc etc but THE POINT is, as you make barrels thicker (heat sink) the nodes get smaller both in amplitude and frequency...... he was well aware of this and trying to find a workaround. If one pould play with flexibility options one could optimize nodes ie "work between the nodes"

 

[BoydAllen]

Al,
Some years back,when the Horus Vision scope and hand held ballistic calculator advertising was at its zenith, their ads featured a rifle that had a heavy contour that was segmented with cuts around the barrel at even intervals. I called someone to find out why that was done and never got an answer. The reason that I called was a conversation with Mr. Vaughn in which he said that according to his computer simulation work that while heavier was an advantage, perhaps not stiffer. I have not seen much done with that idea except that one rifle. I would think that some care would have to be taken not to distort the bore with those cuts.

One of the ways that Varmint Al's work showed that positive compensation could be achieved (besides an eight ounce weight at the muzzle or a longer barrel) was to reduce the diameter of the barrel in the middle, to make it more flexible, creating what was a hinge effect

If you look at the old issue of Precision Shooting that had an article, with pictures, about Bill Calfee's XP 100 conversions, you will see that its barrel is smaller in diameter in the center. When I mentioned this in a thread on Benchrest Central in which Bill was posting, he like the term hinge point and aske permission to use it in future writings. I had concluded that he did that on the pistol to make the short barrel less stiff which reduced the required tuner weight, and kept the pistol in better balance.
Boyd

 

[Jesse Gietzen]

while i have a couple of ideas i want to add, i'm staying out of the stiffness/tuning discussion. my understanding of it is way behind the rest of the class and i am likely to make that obvious.

(Now when someone comes on claiming "the cf wicks heat off faster than the barrel steel can bring it to the surface!!!!" I still have to walk away BUT...... I don't feel that's the thrust of this discussion...)

lord vader finds your lack of faith... disturbing.

i'm sorry my explanation didn't satisfy you. as that part of the thread is dangerously close to becoming a circular argument, i'll let it cool. i do stand by my comment.

i have to add, the way you injected a hillbilly explanation and accent into your typing was excellent. love your sense of humor and i'd still drink a beer with you.

 

[dkhunt14]

uhhhh..... here's the problem. Well, one of the problems with your contentions

STIFFER=SMALLER tuning windows.

Fact.

A stiffer barrel has narrower tuning windows.

Always has, always will. At least that's the PHYSICal explanation but, as per usual

"I Can Explain It To You But I Can't Understand It For You"

See, facts is funny things.....

I see the heavy guns with 30 inch 1.450 barrels glued in a block as being very stiff. I also see them shoot better and tune easier and they stay in tune all season. The aggs and groups with the heavygun are always smaller and have been that way for as long as i can remember. Matt

 

[FURMAN]

I am fully aware of the ideas behind barrel whip timing and relationships to stiffer vs less stiff. I personally have never found a small diameter barrel to have the wide tunes that a varmint, bull, or carbon barrel has. I have developed loads for roughly 40 different barrels(I am completely aware that some of you could blow that away) of all contours and for me the stiffer the barrel the wider the tune. I will not attempt to explain because I can't. I can only tell you what the targets tell me. If weight were not an issue to me I would be running sendero contoured steel barrels as I have found them to be the most forgiving without being extremely heavy. I gave up on pencil barrels because of this. I recently tried again. I had little problem getting right around half moa but a couple tenths up or down in powder and the accuracy was gone. like three inches gone. We could have an entire other discussion on load tuning. The stiffer barrel may be whipping faster but its displacement is less. There has to be a balance or break over point. I do not care to argue about barrel harmonics. The bottom line is for a 3lb barrel I have had the most accuracy with a wide enough for me tune that I do not wish to use a number 2 contour instead. As far as the lengths people go to for weight savings there is nothing I take on the mountain that has not had the same consideration and that includes me.

 

[Milo 2.0]

Why is a carbon fiber barrel even compared to a BR barrel? I've yet to read where one was built for that purpose.
One more, just what pct of US shooters actually shoot for groups or aggs at 600 or 1000 yards? I'm going to say .3%.

@Jaybo , you can buy a Proof blank right now from OTM Tactical for 650, a reg barrel with cerakote will cost you 450. That's around a 44% increase in costs, far from twice.
I've always said every shooter owes it to himself to own one custom action in his lifetime. And with your expressed interest, I feel you are there now too with this, buy one, make your own judgements. You're taking it hunting, not to the IBS nationals.

 

[Jaybo]

Why is a carbon fiber barrel even compared to a BR barrel? I've yet to read where one was built for that purpose.
One more, just what pct of US shooters actually shoot for groups or aggs at 600 or 1000 yards? I'm going to say .3%.

@Jaybo , you can buy a Proof blank right now from OTM Tactical for 650, a reg barrel with cerakote will cost you 450. That's around a 44% increase in costs, far from twice.
I've always said every shooter owes it to himself to own one custom action in his lifetime. And with your expressed interest, I feel you are there now too with this, buy one, make your own judgements. You're taking it hunting, not to the IBS nationals.

the reason why I wanted a carbon fiber Barrel was because of the weight issue. it's only going to be for hunting not for benchrest not for targets. hunting and occasional practices maximum yardage will probably be no more than 700 to 800 yards. I have read enough about carbon fiber barrels in the last 2 weeks to know that as many people that build them would not be building them if they were not accurate and accuracy is one of my top two issues. I'm definitely going to be build the rifle

 

[dkhunt14]

Why is a carbon fiber barrel even compared to a BR barrel? I've yet to read where one was built for that purpose.
One more, just what pct of US shooters actually shoot for groups or aggs at 600 or 1000 yards? I'm going to say .3%.

@Jaybo , you can buy a Proof blank right now from OTM Tactical for 650, a reg barrel with cerakote will cost you 450. That's around a 44% increase in costs, far from twice.
I've always said every shooter owes it to himself to own one custom action in his lifetime. And with your expressed interest, I feel you are there now too with this, buy one, make your own judgements. You're taking it hunting, not to the IBS nationals.

If your referring to my post 87. I used it as an example of the post where it says where stiffer equals smaller tuning windows. It is just an example ot the stiffest combination available and used as an example comparing tune and accuracy. Your wrong on the .03 percent. We have almost 170 shooters every other week and just one of the many 1000 yard ranges. 600 yard is even bigger and has more ranges. Matt

 

[Milo 2.0]

If your referring to my post 87. I used it as an example of the post where it says where stiffer equals smaller tuning windows. It is just an example ot the stiffest combination available and used as an example comparing tune and accuracy. Your wrong on the .03 percent. We have almost 170 shooters every other week and just one of the many 1000 yard ranges. 600 yard is even bigger and has more ranges. Matt

No Matt, I was not, a lot of these posts were trying to make comparisons to the most accurate barrels we know. In my opinion, Proof never made that claim. A product is made, you buy or move on, simple process, no need for redundant rambling.
But I stand by my statement, in the grand scheme of US gun owners, BR shooting a miniscule part of it. I bet most could never name a National champ, and sorry, but I am in this category myself.

 

[alinwa]

the reason why I wanted a carbon fiber Barrel was because of the weight issue. it's only going to be for hunting not for benchrest not for targets. hunting and occasional practices maximum yardage will probably be no more than 700 to 800 yards. I have read enough about carbon fiber barrels in the last 2 weeks to know that as many people that build them would not be building them if they were not accurate and accuracy is one of my top two issues. I'm definitely going to be build the rifle

Ok



(I'ma' regret this but....."In For A Penny"...)


"hunting and occasional practices maximum yardage will probably be no more than 700 to 800 yards."



THIS is the stuff that makes me speak out...... I build rifles for long range hunting (over 300yds)

I have 10 setups in my shop that can and will ETHICALLY harvest an elk at long yardage. Rifles which will actually hold well under 1/2 minute and still dump an entire TON (2000 ftlb) of energy into the meatpile at 1200yds

This whole perception of "I'll only be shooting 7-800yds" is freakin' WHACK! Ain't no such thing as "only 7-800yds"..... in fact, very few people can hit a deer's killzone at 500 yds off a concrete bench!

And BTW let's get one thing straight.... there will NEVER be a Bench Rest match won with a carbon fiber wrapped barrel.


ever



Let's just get our 6 Degrees Of Separation established there eh "benchrest" means something.....

 

[Ledd Slinger]

Ok

(I'ma' regret this but....."In For A Penny"...)

...

Yeah you're right. I do regret having to read another one of your posts.

 

[alinwa]

Ummm

Yeah you're right. I do regret having to read another one of your posts.

ummmm, so..... don't?

It's really hard for me to wrap my head around this.....

I've "seen stuff I can't unsee"

I've "been places I'd rather not been"

But never have I "had to read something I regretted"

Same Planet-Different Worlds

 

[Jaybo]

Ok



(I'ma' regret this but....."In For A Penny"...)


"hunting and occasional practices maximum yardage will probably be no more than 700 to 800 yards."



THIS is the stuff that makes me speak out...... I build rifles for long range hunting (over 300yds)

I have 10 setups in my shop that can and will ETHICALLY harvest an elk at long yardage. Rifles which will actually hold well under 1/2 minute and still dump an entire TON (2000 ftlb) of energy into the meatpile at 1200yds

This whole perception of "I'll only be shooting 7-800yds" is freakin' WHACK! Ain't no such thing as "only 7-800yds"..... in fact, very few people can hit a deer's killzone at 500 yds off a concrete bench!

And BTW let's get one thing straight.... there will NEVER be a Bench Rest match won with a carbon fiber wrapped barrel.


ever



Let's just get our 6 Degrees Of Separation established there eh "benchrest" means something.....

that is very true for most people but I consider myself a very accomplished long-range shooters. I do quite a bit of practicing at longer Rangers . But I do appreciate your concern

 

[JRS]

Until one of these carbon fiber wrapped barrel makers can prove/guarantee an accuracy/longevity advantage (which might justify the cost), I'll stick with unwrapped barrels.

 

[dcali]

If you don’t believe a carbon barrel that weighs the same as a given steel barrel is stiffer than I would say the discussion is over because that is a fact. Depending on the fiber and epoxy it’s usually 2-5 times stiffer for the same weight. The funny thing about facts is they don’t require your belief.

Are you sure about that? I've' not measured it, but typically wrapped composites tend to have poor stiffness characteristics. The fibers themselves are incredibly stiff, but the matrix is incredibly flexible. In a wrapped barrel, the direction of the fiber is not ideal for stiffness (or strength) - you want it to run in line with the barrel, not at an angle. There also appears to be some trickery near the ends of the barrels that is not ideal for stiffness (I would presume this is to combat problems with thermal expansion, but I don't know for sure). This matters a great deal, and I would not at all be surprised to find that proof barrels have relatively low stiffness, which may or may not be a good thing. "For the same weight" also matters - as it plays into vibration frequency (lighter = higher), but I wouldn't assume it's light enough to offset the (probably) lower static stiffness.

 

[dcali]

Nothing "new" here, just old established fact.


I had several phone conversations with Harold Vaughn before he passed.....he had enough work done, material in his files for two more books but he was so wrapped up in more experimenting that he just couldn't find the time. Interestingly enough, the area he most wanted to explore was HEAVY but FLOPPY barrels. When I spake with him he was looking for ways, trying things to bond lead to steel in the interest of cladding barrels in lead for exactly this reason. I strongly disagreed with the methodology, instead suggesting radial cuts with CNC equipment to make repeatable contours etc etc but THE POINT is, as you make barrels thicker (heat sink) the nodes get smaller both in amplitude and frequency...... he was well aware of this and trying to find a workaround. If one pould play with flexibility options one could optimize nodes ie "work between the nodes"

Thank you for mentioning this. The short passage in his book where he mentions the lead sleeves is curious in that he offers no explanation as to why he was doing it (not in any detail at least) - only a description and a note that it didn't work due to mechanical failures. I remember thinking "how on earth do you expect to bond lead to steel", so I bet you're right - annular cuts would be interesting. Or an aggressive taper, seeing as heat tends to build in the area in front of the chamber.

 

[Kurz]

I'm not getting involved in the histrionics over barrel opinions but I have noticed a couple of other enhancements to mention.


Barrel with weight forward cross section and lighter profile in the middle:


This style enjoyed some popularity a couple of decades ago but never developed a big following.

Now we have Titanium system barrels:

https://www.drakeassociates.us/product/drake-titan-barrels/

Elite Warrior Armament (no website except FB): Used to make rifle barrels with an aluminum sleeve as did Lothar Walther a while back but I can't find any mention on their new website.