• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Gunsmithing Any thoughts on structured barrels?

Since you are asking about a third party statement I will have to "guess".
Microwave in this case is not my microwave oven.
I think it was a jargon term describing waves of short length.
Since an explosion in a barrel does not produce a single node frequency (how narrow is narrow) and multiple frequency nodes will exist within the major sinosoidal event the term micro wave is general in nature.
I also believe the point was that vibration creates heat. Heat will shift your impact point as the node moves with the heat, and at some point it will add fatigue to the metal, and the additional BTU value inputted will decrease the delta from ambient of when the metal becomes malleable. I just might know something about this... during our processes in my past we had to build tools that vibrated very specifically.

How about this: I can see you and I are going to argue about small little points until the cows come home. Or pigs.
You choose the rifle (300cal and above).
Chassis or stock- I will build to match yours.
You choose 4 bullet weights. Of at least 60plus grains variation.
I load for both guns. You load for both guns. In fairness with an understanding of chamber/throat dimensions per bullet. Concentric rounds.
At least one 20shot string on 30sec intervals.
Group size, group drift, SD variation, velocity variation (yes ours stays flatter).
You choose the distance.
Neutral shooting place.
You beat our gun- you get our gun.
We beat you - we get your gun.
The targets won't lie, the numbers won't lie...
Probably not your best moment. Chad doesn't need my mention, he's on the right path. You mention 1 gunsmith and not a lot of customers. Might brag a little more when you have some more gunsmiths and customers. Until then, we in this precision realm will wait, unabated, and salivating at the opportunity to spend covid cash.

Thanks
 
Probably not your best moment. Chad doesn't need my mention, he's on the right path. You mention 1 gunsmith and not a lot of customers. Might brag a little more when you have some more gunsmiths and customers. Until then, we in this precision realm will wait, unabated, and salivating at the opportunity to spend covid cash.

Thanks
[/QUOTE

There a number of customers/competitors who use them .... chambered by some very good smiths .... Dan Warner has chambered mine, and I’m confident he would be high on the food chain of competent ... highly qualified smiths. Mr Vestal is and has chambered more than his share of structured barrels, and he is another Smith very high on the food chain well within the “Precision realm” you describe above.

John Baker has become a friend after I sent him through the ringer of questions after questions regarding his structured barrel. I have been or was fortunate to shoot several before having Dan Warner chamber one on a ELR rifle for me. The fact is the barrel is uniquely different from my other standard profile barrel.
The first impression after shooting one is tough to describe other than its uniquely different. The recoil impulse is most definitely different. Now, if you only shoot a 6mm; I suppose you wouldn’t notice the difference, but on a firmer recoiling ELR Rifle .... it’s most definitely different. The difference, as I have described before, is much like hitting a baseball with an aluminum baseball bat too a solid wooden Louisville slugger. The structured barrel is like hitting the sweet spot on a good wooden bat .... it just recoils differently.
The harmonic balance or difference I’ve seen from a structured barrel vs a standard profile barrel is in the consistency of offset over varying charge weights. On ELR rifles, most of us run offsets from our zero (POI is high in relation to our POA). My experience with a structured barrel is that my offsets across a wide velocity range is identical. This is what I would call a “Precision Realm” of overly acceptable accuracy.
As I read above, a gentleman asked about the spiral cut and sandblasted finish. This negates the mirage From the end of the scope to the end of the barrel. This in itself is uniquely different.
In ELR, reducing verticals at distance is most definitely paramount to any level of success. I believe and use a structured barrel because it succeeds in reducing a variable we are able to control.
I have found John Baker to be a man with a high degree of integrity. His products are being used by those in harms way, and I seriously doubt there is a higher degree of requirement for “Precision Realm” unabated quality.
I Approached the technology with an open mind .... I asked questions before I just started blasting it and posting remarks.
Good Luck and great shooting
Chris Schmidt
Tennessee
48F62CBA-9262-4FA2-A885-1FDCF3A53F51.jpeg
 
Ok... why the heck is anyone beating up on John Baker? We have a thread here asking about structured barrels and a lot of questions up front about how they are done and what makes an interesting theoretical exercise into a valid practical one...

Then we have the very guy who seems to be behind a cool new tech here explaining it and walking us through it... and doing it well... and folks are breaking out popcorn memes?

This has been a great enough thread to attract some amazing insight and, apparently, bring onboard a new Hide member at the bleeding edge of barrel theory, design and execution. And he is getting a Bear-pit like pile-on? For sharing what he is doing so we can better understand a new concept in barrels Design and manufacture.

I swear that if John Browning himself showed up someone would tell him his newfangled 1911 wouldn’t work and that the lever action could never be mass-produced.

Thanks for sharing @John Baker and for the insight and info. It’s what keeps this field interesting and moving forwards. The cutting edge had to be somewhere... and it’s good to see it being explained here on SH. Some very neat stuff you have going on!

Cheers, Sirhr
 
Ok... why the heck is anyone beating up on John Baker?

Hi,

THIS!!!

Because here is how this can professionally be ironed out IMO. You would think John would know more than anyone else in regards to whom has gotten his barrels and as to how many they have gotten.

LRI post up the pictures of said "several" of the structured barrels that he has had come through his shop to show where his statements originated from; because from his threads on here he clearly takes pictures of everything.

NOW onto the barrels and the additional information John has posted.

The recoil comparisons:
That is a relatively easy thing to prove or disprove if the felt recoil is real or not. Has there been any testing with recoil movement/measuring machines or accelerometers? Maybe I should purchase 1 and find out.

The hint sink comparisons:
That is a relatively easy thing to prove or disprove too. Build a digital thermometer into the cartridge case itself. Shoot your 20 round string with structured barrel then insert cartridge thermometer and time how fast the INSIDE of chamber area cools off. Shoot your 20 round string (Exact same ammunition) with regular barrel then insert cartridge thermometer and time how fast the INSIDE of chamber area cools off. Maybe another reason I purchase 1 and find out.

Things that confuse me:
I am not following why the requirement for a 60 grain projectile span in the challenge call out. Nobody is building ELR rifles to function with such a large projectile weight range. We all pretty much build them to a very specific projectile, damn sure not a 60 grain weight span. Shit...even in the little pee shooters that weight range requirement for the challenge call out does not make sense to me. That is like a 80gr to 140gr 6.5CM....

While I understand that some coatings were tested and caused the design of the barrels to be reduced. I do have question of if this has been tested with barrel treatments (not referring to nitriding by the way) not coatings because in the long market run the industry is just not going to settle for a sand blasted barrel finish when they are customizing all these chassis colors, etc etc.
There are some metal treatments utilized in other industries quiet a bit that I would be interested in testing to see if they held heat in, etc etc.

Enough for now, lol

Sincerely,
Theis
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of when the cryogenically frozen rifle barrels were going to change everything.
I'll wait for 3rd or 4th evolution before taking it seriously.
Never buy 1st generation anyfink.
Bah Humbug!
 
As for the sandblasting... or other ‘blasted’ finishes... shot peening (not blasting) has been studied and use for years initially in high-performance and later in production engines.

It has a long history for eliminating stresses and for addressing certain types of surface defects that can become cracks or failure points.


Not a cooling technique, but designed to eliminate stresses. Back about 2013 some folks were offering this for AR barrels, but seemed like it was more a gimmick on barrels that were often pretty short and not intended for precision platforms. And the discussions died out.

New stuff happening in manufacturing technology every day. If rifle barrels are a proving ground, it is all the better for us! Because we get the benefits first.

As for Grumpy’s statement... it is a good rule of thumb in some cases. Don’t buy a first-year new model car. Don’t buy the firs plasma TV... if you want security and 100 percent reliability. I am definitely like that with daily drivers and consumer electronics.

But when it comes to firearms innovation... some of us like being out front. The innovation is part of the fun. It’s what makes the field so interesting because gun and weapons design has , for 3,000 years, pushed forward metallurgy, machine tools, modeling, computers, composites... Advanced Programs indeed!!!

Is sandblasting got anything reasonable to do with cooling? No clue. Does shot peening have a place in barrel engineering? Also no clue. It works great in automotive applications. Maybe there is a crossover. Are structured barrels game changing? At the bleeding edge, they probably are. For deer hunting... probably not. I’m not here for deer rifles! Despite my love for antiques and old methods at times.

But I can’t wait to find out these answers. And find out first here on SH.

Sirhr
 
Hi,

THIS!!!

Because here is how this can professionally be ironed out IMO. You would think John would know more than anyone else in regards to whom has gotten his barrels and as to how many they have gotten.

LRI post up the pictures of said "several" of the structured barrels that he has had come through his shop to show where his statements originated from; because from his threads on here he clearly takes pictures of everything.

NOW onto the barrels and the additional information John has posted.

The recoil comparisons:
That is a relatively easy thing to prove or disprove if the felt recoil is real or not. Has there been any testing with recoil movement/measuring machines or accelerometers? Maybe I should purchase 1 and find out.

The hint sink comparisons:
That is a relatively easy thing to prove or disprove too. Build a digital thermometer into the cartridge case itself. Shoot your 20 round string with structured barrel then insert cartridge thermometer and time how fast the INSIDE of chamber area cools off. Shoot your 20 round string (Exact same ammunition) with regular barrel then insert cartridge thermometer and time how fast the INSIDE of chamber area cools off. Maybe another reason I purchase 1 and find out.

Things that confuse me:
I am not following why the requirement for a 60 grain projectile span in the challenge call out. Nobody is building ELR rifles to function with such a large projectile weight range. We all pretty much build them to a very specific projectile, damn sure not a 60 grain weight span. Shit...even in the little pee shooters that weight range requirement for the challenge call out does not make sense to me. That is like a 80gr to 140gr 6.5CM....

While I understand that some coatings were tested and caused the design of the barrels to be reduced. I do have question of if this has been tested with barrel treatments (not referring to nitriding by the way) not coatings because in the long market run the industry is just not going to settle for a sand blasted barrel finish when they are customizing all these chassis colors, etc etc.
There are some metal treatments utilized in other industries quiet a bit that I would be interested in testing to see if they held heat in, etc etc.

Enough for now, lol

Sincerely,
Theis
I will be contacting LRI- we have never heard of them. Never spoke to them. But I will. The problem with a 100% false statement is people believe it with absolutely no proof or follow up or research. I might be looking in the wrong spot on their site but I certainly don't find a picture of anything with one of our barrels on it. So how could I know "who" when in this case the "who" doesn't exist.

I would never ever cut down a company and say something about operations without up front first hand knowledge. Even if failure existed I wouldn't say a thing to the outside public. DO YOU HERE THAT LRI? Why would you put down any company trying to make a swing at something? Let the public create a negative point about the product...
Find a posting from a person who has our barrel who says it does not work.
We had a recent 6mm guy call to tell me that it is rare that a product exceeds all of the product points. Funny- most accurate field gun he has ever had.
You are right- I know every manufacturer who has provided a blank. We certainly have records. We can show exactly how many blanks have been bought from day 1 and from who and where each one is. Only one of those could make any comment... why would they though? wouldn't they want us to make a bunch of junk? More money to them. Why make us mad when such a gravy train exists?


"One gunsmith"- considering a recent post which discussed other gunsmiths was "deleted" - we use Robert Vestal because he does great work, along with an excellent Dan Warner. Oh how about the guys at Mirage. Did you watch their video? We work with a handful of companies as "go too's" and that's who we post on our web site.

Recoil- we will run a gage. However- gonna get an argument here- recoil is not a singular vector. That gage measures one vector. It just happens that every single customer talks about the recoil. One noted - using a .375 EnABLERF- pulled a perfectly good barrel and put ours on. His first very first note and call was about the recoil. Now he has literally a couple of 1000 rds shot in that cartridge- on a Cadex chassis. Just maybe- maybe- he can tell a difference. But all of you are right- I do not have a gage measurement- yet. I won't do it, a third party will. It does not seem to be of any impact that the vast majority of our videos are 3rd party. Did you ( this forum) see the Eduardo video? Mirage? Did anyone watch the video from K2M last year? Those videos were about as spontaneous as you can get.

The bullet weight. Fifteen years ago a 700hp engine would be a radical, idle at 1500rpm, not pass emissions, can't sit in traffic engine. It was not possible. Today its floor bought dealer stuff. My point is mine is the dealer stuff. The barrel WILL shoot a wider range of ladder charge, bullet weight, more forgiving throat depths (I can hear the argument there also) . lt's not a DIVA. It is forgiving. That forgiveness matters (to some- evidently very few) on hot days vs cold days, or you have actually load a different powder... or name the situation. You can have the 1500rpm idle - I will take the 2020 Corvette or Camaro. Yes- before you guys jump on this one, the engine in my cat ( as in boat) was worth more than that 2020 Corvette.
The point is to show the forgiveness of the barrel. Have you guys not watched the third party results? 6mm to .416?
Let's say all of you are experts on loading- I am not. Altered challenge: A third party can choose a caliber. We load and shoot a full ladder test there on the range. Name the bet. Oh a full ladder test on let's say a .338 is going to be at least 8-10gr. For those rolling their eyes- it's not a barrel DIVA. That's the point. What if someone is not an expert like all of you- they will get to a load faster. I l had a Ranger tell me "BS" - he now works for us.
If your going to sit here and tell me we are full of BS- I'm not going to sit here and say "well .. it's just fine". I know what our product can do. Others owners also. I'm willing to absolutely put my gun/money were this forum challenges it. I set a challenge and the challenge is called BS- if the challenge is on this forum - you are right "I loose".

I should have never discussed "sand blasting". Actually I was professionally answering the post in response to the "show us that sandblasting cooling". I did not realize at the time the response was totally full of disdain.
Let's use the car stuff again: ever pick up a polished wrench sitting in the sun? I 100% agree with the stress relieving properties.
The note about not possible to reduce barrel throat failure by cooling the barrel... (paraphrasing)... engine rings, valve seats... If I can pull heat out of the chamber the initial failure points will require a higher heat gain to go into failure. A lower starting temperature means a greater gain needs to be made/produced in order to create the metal failure. Our barrels have north of 300% more cooling surface. However- 300% more cooling surface doesn't' mean a thing to many on this post. Pull your radiator out and put a solid block of the same weight back in. I'm calling Ford Monday to tell them to drop their radiators. For those who use a torch, thin metal, shapes with delicate features- where does the metal object glow first? If 416 starts its first phase change at 500deg and a I can pull a delta of -50deg- why wouldn't I?
I'll bet a $1000 our .375 Cheytac runs cooler than anybody's 300wm on this site. Cooler - not insulated.
Why the crass bet- because I know what our barrels do, "you/forum" don't. Easy money. I am not running the fastest car in the area that only stays polished in the garage. ( I can hear the heads popping on that one... its just a phrase).
Graphite makes a great "black body" to field test a chamber. The mat finish won't lie to the IR gun. Oh crap... more garbage talk.

Colors on barrels: we ship fully polished barrels if requested. Colors to whatever the customer wants.
Other coatings and barrel treatments- I don't think I am going to discuss anything about any thoughts we might have. Certainly not were this barrel is going ( a pig with tits logo for sure). Obviously we are way on the wrong track.... just like the Armor, Charlie TARAC.. bad business models. But.. I forget to easily. The Armor was torn up here ( a "car rack" - actually its kind of funny... but not to the guys who "use" it) along with the Charlie TARAC to a high degree.

This wasn't focused on you Theis... I don't know you and have no opinion of you. I just realize that anything I say is going know where. That's why I pulled away from any insight we might have in this post. I think I am going to go start up my Milwaukee drill. I have some barrels to make.
 
As for the sandblasting... or other ‘blasted’ finishes... shot peening (not blasting) has been studied and use for years initially in high-performance and later in production engines.

It has a long history for eliminating stresses and for addressing certain types of surface defects that can become cracks or failure points.


Not a cooling technique, but designed to eliminate stresses. Back about 2013 some folks were offering this for AR barrels, but seemed like it was more a gimmick on barrels that were often pretty short and not intended for precision platforms. And the discussions died out.

New stuff happening in manufacturing technology every day. If rifle barrels are a proving ground, it is all the better for us! Because we get the benefits first.

As for Grumpy’s statement... it is a good rule of thumb in some cases. Don’t buy a first-year new model car. Don’t buy the firs plasma TV... if you want security and 100 percent reliability. I am definitely like that with daily drivers and consumer electronics.

But when it comes to firearms innovation... some of us like being out front. The innovation is part of the fun. It’s what makes the field so interesting because gun and weapons design has , for 3,000 years, pushed forward metallurgy, machine tools, modeling, computers, composites... Advanced Programs indeed!!!

Is sandblasting got anything reasonable to do with cooling? No clue. Does shot peening have a place in barrel engineering? Also no clue. It works great in automotive applications. Maybe there is a crossover. Are structured barrels game changing? At the bleeding edge, they probably are. For deer hunting... probably not. I’m not here for deer rifles! Despite my love for antiques and old methods at times.

But I can’t wait to find out these answers. And find out first here on SH.

Sirhr
Thank you for a reasonable reply.
I do not claim in any way (yet) what the exact gains are (by degree/celsius) or claim its the "holy grail". We were looking for every degree gain possible. I am happy to listen to any argument or proof that shows that a rough/porous surface made by "sandblasting" does not increase surface area and therefore has no effect on temperature. Plus there is "sandblasting" and then there is "sandblasting". Again I don't even want to discuss RMS finishes, topography and the micron world... ( the engineering BS jargon... the guy has me pegged for sure) Perhaps tests should take place across a full temp spectrum..? What I know exactly is how fast our barrels cool. What I know is the sandblasted surface does allow faster cooling. Field wise our barrels are harder to detect... I don't even want to go into the "why".
 
I would never ever cut down a company and say something about operations without up front first hand knowledge. Even if failure existed I wouldn't say a thing to the outside public. DO YOU HERE THAT LRI? Why would you put down any company trying to make a swing at something?

I think this is pretty much proof positive that John truly never has heard of chad dixon.

PM headed your way.
 
This wasn't focused on you Theis... I don't know you and have no opinion of you. I just realize that anything I say is going know where. That's why I pulled away from any insight we might have in this post. I think I am going to go start up my Milwaukee drill. I have some barrels to make.

Hi,

I would not sell the forum knowledge that short just yet :)

There are some very knowledgeable guys on here that can hold legit conversations on genres and topics that are pretty surprising.

I would be interested in having some metal treatment/coating discussions with you. We (My company) has spent the past year in learning of and having test done on an array of different metal treatments/coatings. Some that the gun industry rave about actually suck, lol..and some that the gun industry knows relatively nothing about are awesome.

Also, as far as 3rd party accreditation locations aka independent evaluation companies. Not sure if you have looked into them but NTS Testing is one of the most diverse and largest in the USA. This is whom I will be sending our weapon system with normal barrel and our weapon system with your barrel too for analysis.

I will be calling you this week.

Sincerely,
Theis
 
I like the claims but who doesn't?

No load workup? That alone would make it worth it to me if didn't weigh any more --but I doubt that's the case.

And how can this barrel do anything that an uncontoured blank can't do? Remove material = less weight but at the cost of strength. So removing material doesn't make it stronger. Forget about the heat for a moment.

I guess I just don't see it's value really.

For the cost I think I'd rather shed weight with a CF barrel.

Material engineering is coming a long way and it'd be interesting to see where all this goes in the next fifty years.
 
PS, who the fuck is John Baker and why is he coming off to me a lot like the guy that owned Bobcat Arms, SW, etc.?

Chad, yeah, I've heard of that guy (and I'm waiting for him to return an email, hint, hint).
 
Hi,

I would not sell the forum knowledge that short just yet :)

There are some very knowledgeable guys on here that can hold legit conversations on genres and topics that are pretty surprising.

I would be interested in having some metal treatment/coating discussions with you. We (My company) has spent the past year in learning of and having test done on an array of different metal treatments/coatings. Some that the gun industry rave about actually suck, lol..and some that the gun industry knows relatively nothing about are awesome.

Also, as far as 3rd party accreditation locations aka independent evaluation companies. Not sure if you have looked into them but NTS Testing is one of the most diverse and largest in the USA. This is whom I will be sending our weapon system with normal barrel and our weapon system with your barrel too for analysis.

I will be calling you this week.

Sincerely,
Theis
Hello Theis,

Like I said - seeing continued responses.... I am tremendously interested in coatings and metal treatments. Way open to testing. I would very much enjoy a conversation ([email protected]). I think as we get older and our brain less pliable it gets harder to get off of the narrow path we have set ourselves on. And "no"... I think the smartest guys are the ones asking questions. I think the smartest guys are often the guys who can't write a paragraph but can tear apart a piece of equipment and make it run. The guys who are often the ones with the fewest words.
 
PS, who the fuck is John Baker and why is he coming off to me a lot like the guy that owned Bobcat Arms, SW, etc.?

Chad, yeah, I've heard of that guy (and I'm waiting for him to return an email, hint, hint).
Easy there .... I never said anything about owning anything other than TACOMHQ. Perhaps you should look up 6000yd shots. Or take a review of the history of distance for sniper kills... The only thing I have posted are facts.
 
I like the claims but who doesn't?

No load workup? That alone would make it worth it to me if didn't weigh any more --but I doubt that's the case.

And how can this barrel do anything that an uncontoured blank can't do? Remove material = less weight but at the cost of strength. So removing material doesn't make it stronger. Forget about the heat for a moment.

I guess I just don't see it's value really.

For the cost I think I'd rather shed weight with a CF barrel.

Material engineering is coming a long way and it'd be interesting to see where all this goes in the next fifty years.
We have built barrels in the sub 6lb range. Our 32" 1.45dia barrel is sub 7lb. Our TRG-42 300Wm minus optics with a 26" 1.5" barrel is sub 11lbs.
No load work up... at the very least it will be potentially much shorter especially if you don't have a starting point. That is why the discussion of a challenge for large bullet weight variation and type. It was a top F1 team that did that test (this demonstration has been done a few times). With absolutely zero work up three widely varying powder weights, bullet weights all shot sub 3/8" groups. All rounds together touching. The gun was optimized for the 230Berger. What do you think the bullet jump was for that chamber with a Sierra 168gr is? It still shot a sub 3/8" group.
To be truthful- even though it is our gun- walking into a demo with that variation present is always a bit of a pucker. Another common statement about the performance of the barrels is: "It shouldn't do this".... as in group the way it does with widely varying loads with little to no drift.

It's not about the removing weight "makes it stronger"- we haven't figured that one out yet. It's about how the weight is used. Simple an "I" beam versus a rod. Weight for weight in its intended direction the I beam is way stronger than the rod. Look at what AI systems are designing. Shapes look like a bunch of spaghetti. Airplane wings are a series of struts and shapes to keep the weight as low as possible but strength at acceptable limits. We have a series of "I" beams wrapped around a core. As a owner of Applied Ballistics told me "it's stupid strong". Weight for weight our barrel is stronger than a standard barrel. Pure fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and GUNNER10
I like the claims but who doesn't?

No load workup? That alone would make it worth it to me if didn't weigh any more --but I doubt that's the case.

And how can this barrel do anything that an uncontoured blank can't do? Remove material = less weight but at the cost of strength. So removing material doesn't make it stronger. Forget about the heat for a moment.

1) The load workup that most people do follows around the sinusoidal noise produced by low sample size in both precision and MV. Increasing powder charge weight from book min to book max (and above) has never produced sinusoidal dispersion results in my 20-50 shot test strings with standard barrels. Almost unanimously dispersion increases with powder charge. Some powders have dramatically slower dispersion increase rates. Those same powders tend to produce consistent ES/SD numbers regardless of charge (within book listings, I wouldn't be surprised if you went down to 50% case fill if there were irregularities) or seating depth (again within reason). Seating depth changes precision minimally but seems happiest .020-.060 off the lands with most of my testing. Best to worst on seating depth has been ~.1-.2 MOA over a 20 shot string. Also, not many people have 1/2 MOA "all day long" loads. Able to produce 1/2 MOA 5 and (less repeatably) 10-shot groups, sure. Entire cone of fire over a 200 rounds 2 day match? Not likely. I'd guess most hover .7-1.2 MOA. Truly 1/2 MOA or better takes a bit of exploring/doing.

2) I'm not sure what strength has to do with it? We're not really worried about the barrel yielding. Maybe you mean rigidity? And that certainly CAN be higher with less material present depending on the cross-sectional shape of the material.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash
John, curious to hear how powders affect accuracy. Take a middle of the book load with Powders A, B, C, and D. Is accuracy the same/similar with them all over 20+ shots?

My experience is that in traditional barrels changing powder blend/type is the biggest single factor to changing dispersion, then changing powder weight (dropping it), then bullets.
 
How many people who are the naysayers here who actually shot one? I have and I can tell you it is distinctly different than a standard Barrel. That shot attenuation is simply not there.

One was a 50 cal, two wer 50 cal based cartridges. I couldn't tell you exactly which ones. Don't recall if I shot the 338 or not.

Cooling? I don't shoot those calibers so I can't tell you how many is a good number for heat buildup. What I can say is after multiple Shooters multiple rounds it was as cool if not cooler than my fluted 308 after about 30 rounds.

I didn't know when shooting but I was told that I wasn't shooting the same load on each shot. The interesting thing was you couldn't tell if the change an impact was due to me or load differences.
 
Perhaps a bit of back to the beginning.
We don't claim end all do all know all. There are barrels that will outperform ours within the arenas they are optimized for. Hauling around a mountain after goats- a carbon fiber as light as possible gun. Extended fire fight where flatter SD's and reduced group drift are important- our barrel.

Hugely smart people are on here with experiences that make mine/ours look a bit child like. Others have proven to be a-holes. To bad.
The great questions of how, EDM, 3D printing, coatings, metal treatment are all constructive. The fact is our barrel is not "done". It is at its first steps of integration and goals. It just happens to also do very well with current components.

A bit crass... the only way I really know how to respond is with performance. It does not matter what is said on a paper/forum its what the bullet prints on the paper or target. I just happen to be extremely confident about our barrel. If I am willing to put my money where my mouth is: shouldn't that be a good thing?

Our warranty is simple: If our barrel does not shoot as good or better than your current barrel - we will buy it back.
The only caveat is chamber work and rifling- it needs to be good.
I think repeat buyers with a totally new product: imply a satisfied customer.

For those who ask "who F... is John Baker".... the guy who's optic owns every single long range record there is. The group with dozens of positive field reports from SF guys who run our stuff, about all of our products. What those guys write down is really meaningful to me - its the only written papers that matter. Who in this audience won't agree with that?

Finally Chad: I think we might know who he is. By our call log and the pictures of "barrels" on his Facebook page. (Those are NOT our barrels). We will know shortly as we look further into our logs, but a "Chad" called us this past summer. He wanted (brain drain) to know how we test our barrels for strength, variability etc... how we measure.. we could see he is/was a competitor by the images we were looking at on his web site as we were speaking to him. We answered most all of his questions. Actually I don't consider that design competitive to ours. During that conversation could there have been discussion on initial start up losses? Yes. Initial issues? Yes. It was a friendly conversation. If this is the same Chad we spoke too with the same distinctive barrels he is producing... now commenting on our performance.. a bit sad is my only commentary to say the least.
Surely if the Chad on this forum had some proof - he would have responded by now versus letting us be smacked around a bit. Again we will know tomorrow for sure. If you have to prove a superior product by cutting another one down with BS ... I have no respect. I actually discussed with my son working with this "Chad", recognizing the potential benefits of working together vs potential court. I had a very open mind about that conversation. I just hope the "Chad" we spoke to is not this same Chad on this forum.
Stuff like this makes me slower to discuss ideas. The downsides are risky. Poop talk or just copy your design and go to court.

I also did learn something too... the cat meme. Had no clue what its point was. I have cats so I didn't know if it was a bit of a middle finger or a good thing. A cat in popcorn... Now I know. I still like cats though and dogs, birds, most anything that moves... though some people ride that edge.
 
John, curious to hear how powders affect accuracy. Take a middle of the book load with Powders A, B, C, and D. Is accuracy the same/similar with them all over 20+ shots?

My experience is that in traditional barrels changing powder blend/type is the biggest single factor to changing dispersion, then changing powder weight (dropping it), then bullets.
My loading secret... I look up the bullet on the Hogdon powder book. Drop two grains. Load (if possible) .025" off of the lands and go shoot. Typically we chase SD's with powder variation. On paper at 100yds... you better be having a good shooting day. We are not load guys- we leave that to guys like Brian at Coastal Precision- or guys like on this forum.
Exactly to your point- within reason - and powder characteristics are similar (H1000, Retumbo ) I think you will be looking pretty hard. 3 shots probably won't do it. However we have shot our 300NM with 168 at 3400fps and 2200fps (half empty case) and had little clover leaf groups appear down range... vertical to each other. Essentially no left or right shift.
In the end our barrel "moves" less. It will be more forgiving under all normal circumstances.
Did you watch the Rex video- one of the guns he shot was our AR in .260Rem. Four bullet weights and three manufacturers, three shooters. All rounds in the same 1/2moa group at 100yds. That was a good day.
Actually a guy like you would be very instructive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ledzep
John, curious to hear how powders affect accuracy. Take a middle of the book load with Powders A, B, C, and D. Is accuracy the same/similar with them all over 20+ shots?

My experience is that in traditional barrels changing powder blend/type is the biggest single factor to changing dispersion, then changing powder weight (dropping it), then bullets.
Taking it a bit further:
Multiple 3rd parties have tested for variations in SD, velocity drift, group drift, group size drift. Comparing them directly with a like standard barrel- one was a switch barrel. Ours is "flatter" in all categories to date. Our test are at least 20rds.... more like 50.
Have we found a round that did not shoot out of our barrels- YES. Shooting a 150gr Speer hunting bullet from the 80's.. our guns didnt like that one. Of course it could also have been the .200"+ jump.
Speaking of jumps- we ran our 33XC at a thousand yards with a variation of .150" of jump- 300gr Hornady Atip at around 3050fpm. We moved the bullet back until we could not compress the powder any more. The total variation in the test at 1000yds was 8" (left right up down). The recoil value did change as we started compacting the load. Off of a rickety bench way out of position bench... getting an excuse in here. Though a few moments previous a Ranger printed a sub 3" group five rounds at that thousand with a Norma... a better excuse LOL.
 
My loading secret... I look up the bullet on the Hogdon powder book. Drop two grains. Load (if possible) .025" off of the lands and go shoot. Typically we chase SD's with powder variation. On paper at 100yds... you better be having a good shooting day. We are not load guys- we leave that to guys like Brian at Coastal Precision- or guys like on this forum.
Exactly to your point- within reason - and powder characteristics are similar (H1000, Retumbo ) I think you will be looking pretty hard. 3 shots probably won't do it. However we have shot our 300NM with 168 at 3400fps and 2200fps (half empty case) and had little clover leaf groups appear down range... vertical to each other. Essentially no left or right shift.
In the end our barrel "moves" less. It will be more forgiving under all normal circumstances.
Did you watch the Rex video- one of the guns he shot was our AR in .260Rem. Four bullet weights and three manufacturers, three shooters. All rounds in the same 1/2moa group at 100yds. That was a good day.
Actually a guy like you would be very instructive.
To further your points:
Isolating a variable that who's result is shared by multiple other variables is a hard task.
You have experience and knowledge we do not. Your input is very important to us.
A general statement: the guys who have bought our barrels are not beginners by any stretch. They all say the same words: forgiving. Or I could have chosen several loads and been happy. Or the first load I shot worked- I'm done.
Not totally scientific for sure- but at some point a trend can be had from a generalization. Others are meticulous in there records (Coastal Precision).
Brian was absolutely skeptical about these barrels- key word "was".
 
Hi,

So I have been having some off forum conversations with a few people in regards to barrel temperatures, ignition temperatures, metallurgical properties, etc in regards to barrel throat temperatures and "cooling".

With that being said I have to tag in a couple guys much smarter than myself to get their insight.
@308pirate
@gnochi

So question(s) is:

1. A barrel cannot get any hotter than its peak chamber ignition temperature right?
a. So a barrel (where it matters...throat) cannot get hotter once the firing has stopped right?

2. Considering the normal barrel alloys used..
a. How many consecutive shoots need to be done before the accumulative heat starts to mess with metallurgical properties of barrel?
b. How would increasing external surface area reduce internal throat temperatures to the point of increasing the barrel life?
c. Does reduction of a barrels exterior temperatures directly corelate to longer barrel life since the ignition temperature has not and cannot be reduced externally?

Sincerely,
Theis
 
1. A barrel cannot get any hotter than its peak chamber ignition temperature right?
a. So a barrel (where it matters...throat) cannot get hotter once the firing has stopped right?
correct, once firing has stopped, the barrel will only decrease in temperature, as no more energy is being put into the system.

2. Considering the normal barrel alloys used..
a. How many consecutive shoots need to be done before the accumulative heat starts to mess with metallurgical properties of barrel?
cant really answer that directly, as it depends on a number of factors like cartridge type, powder used, speed of firing, ect.

but most steel tend to see noticeable effects in mechanical properties around 400*F.....but you will see dramatic effects from temperature when you get to normalizing, annealing, hardening temperatures north of 1200*F

at lower temperatures 400-600, the amount of time spent at those elevated temperatures becomes important.

b. How would increasing external surface area reduce internal throat temperatures to the point of increasing the barrel life?
increasing thermal mass would be the primary.....increase in cooling surface area to a much lesser extent.

but what you are really talking about is a difference of a few shots.

c. Does reduction of a barrels exterior temperatures directly corelate to longer barrel life since the ignition temperature has not and cannot be reduced externally?
to any significant extent? not that ive seen personally.....what ive found is you end up with a localized Heat effected zone at the throat, which theoretically could be reduced by a larger diameter barrel (more thermal mass) and exterior cooling. but i have not seen that in practice.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 308pirate
Hi,

So I have been having some off forum conversations with a few people in regards to barrel temperatures, ignition temperatures, metallurgical properties, etc in regards to barrel throat temperatures and "cooling".

With that being said I have to tag in a couple guys much smarter than myself to get their insight.
@308pirate
@gnochi

So question(s) is:

1. A barrel cannot get any hotter than its peak chamber ignition temperature right?
a. So a barrel (where it matters...throat) cannot get hotter once the firing has stopped right?

2. Considering the normal barrel alloys used..
a. How many consecutive shoots need to be done before the accumulative heat starts to mess with metallurgical properties of barrel?
b. How would increasing external surface area reduce internal throat temperatures to the point of increasing the barrel life?
c. Does reduction of a barrels exterior temperatures directly corelate to longer barrel life since the ignition temperature has not and cannot be reduced externally?

Sincerely,
Theis
I have been following and have a question now. Or a few. I wont type this correctly because brain and fingers think separate so humor me.
@THEIS
Is there an assumption or known that the absolute highest temp during firing a round is GENERATED from the combustion of powder creating hot gas that pushes bullet down the bore? Friction creates heat. While only momentary at any 1 given location at a given time can that friction elevate temp above burn temp? In any way? Can the friction of the gas in the chamber cause similar? I dont think so but your question has me starting to ponder... especially as someone who deals with machinery.

I have other questions based on your questions and a few thoughts. But since I'm the slow kid in the room ill hold off for now.
 
cant really answer that directly, as it depends on a number of factors like cartridge type, powder used, speed of firing, ect.

but most steel tend to see noticeable effects in mechanical properties around 400*F.....but you will see dramatic effects from temperature when you get to normalizing, annealing, hardening temperatures north of 1200*F

at lower temperatures 400-600, the amount of time spent at those elevated temperatures becomes important.

Hi,

But we can reliably use 3300 degrees F as the common/average ignition temperature of smokeless propellants.
So the single burn rate temperature is well above the 400 degrees F mark.

So the question lays...based on those known temperatures--the throat is taking the "burn" no matter what the external dimensions, shapes, etc do to remove the heat? Because nothing can wick heat as fast as the ignition temperature flashes that I know of. Is there??

Sincerely,
Theis
 
Hi,

So I have been having some off forum conversations with a few people in regards to barrel temperatures, ignition temperatures, metallurgical properties, etc in regards to barrel throat temperatures and "cooling".

With that being said I have to tag in a couple guys much smarter than myself to get their insight.
@308pirate
@gnochi

So question(s) is:

1. A barrel cannot get any hotter than its peak chamber ignition temperature right?
a. So a barrel (where it matters...throat) cannot get hotter once the firing has stopped right?

2. Considering the normal barrel alloys used..
a. How many consecutive shoots need to be done before the accumulative heat starts to mess with metallurgical properties of barrel?
b. How would increasing external surface area reduce internal throat temperatures to the point of increasing the barrel life?
c. Does reduction of a barrels exterior temperatures directly corelate to longer barrel life since the ignition temperature has not and cannot be reduced externally?

Sincerely,
Theis

Thanks for the tag, @THEIS!

First off: I don’t know for certain and haven’t studied it specifically. As such I’m going to take a first principles approach. Also there’s a resource here that passes the sniff test and will inform a couple of the answers.

1.
Powder fires are hot, and smokeless powder deflagrates (burns) but does not detonate (at the pressures we use it at). We then contain it in an expanding vessel, and since the internal pressure is a couple orders of magnitude higher than atmospheric, there will be some PV=nRT type contributions that raise the temperature higher. Plus, the powder burn rate depends on temperature, pressure, and geometry* - it doesn’t go off all at once, it’s still burning while the bullet travels some way down the barrel, and even once it’s finished burning the gas it produces is still expanding.

*This is why you don’t just do a 1-for-1 replacement with different powders when reloading - they’re optimized for different burn rates (through both geometry and flame retardant additives) and energy contents (higher or lower energy additives) and such.

In addition to the flame, there are other heat sources including the direct friction of the bullet sliding against the barrel, more heat from internal friction in the bullet as it is deformed by the rifling, and some heat from the expansion of the steel tube that we can approximate the barrel as. Finally, some combustion of the steel tube is technically possible with excess oxygen at those temperatures but I think that is negligible given the lack of rust in the barrel immediately after a gunshot.

The link I posted suggests that the heat going into the barrel is comparable to the kinetic energy going into the bullet, especially once we include friction.

Now, it’s important to note that we don’t just have a one-and-done flame when the bullet is lodged in the throat of the barrel. We can approximate the duration of the fire in the throat as the duration of the bullet in the barrel, which means we can back-calculate that we have an extremely high temperature for a fairly short duration (which should be obvious).

Given the inherent difficulty in monitoring temperatures directly at bullet timescales, I think it’s safe to say that the highest temperature is encountered slightly after the bullet has been engraved into the rifling, and will primarily affect the throat area of the barrel. Note that while the gas temperature will start decreasing at this point, the barrel temperature close to the bore will still be increasing because the gas is much hotter and the convective heat transfer from fast-moving hot gas to the steel barrel will be much faster than the (relatively poor) thermal conduction from the inside of the barrel to the outside, where we encounter convection to slow-moving gas that’s not much colder than the outside of the barrel and therefore not transferring much heat at our timescales.

Please also note that since this is a transient phenomenon, we will not see the typical inverted half-paraboloid from a steady-state cylinder with internal heating source. Instead we will see a huge spike at the innermost surface that relatively slowly decays into such a half-paraboloid that itself is getting flatter as heat is removed. Side note: the barrelkuhl and other such widgets help because they turn the half-paraboloid temperature distribution into a full paraboloid for a given section of cylinder, and they don’t help much because the amount of air you can shove down a rifle barrel is pretty pathetic and air doesn’t have much volumetric heat capacity anyway.

In summary:
1. Likely cannot exceed that temperature (barring friction effects) and probably doesn’t (because transient phenomena with low heat relative to thermal mass of the barrel)
a. Definitely not.

2.
a. Total properties of the barrel, I’ve seen someone do full-auto dumps with an M16 and the gas tube melted shortly after the barrel was otherwise starting to glow a bit, after several hundred rounds at full cyclic rate. Bulk barrel steel structural properties don’t change until you’re pretty well on the way to the outer surface glowing, in part because geometry trumps elasticity every time, and the barrel surface - which is by definition the coldest part of a barrel in atmosphere with the barrel being shot regularly - has a massive contribution to total barrel stiffness.
Now, if we’re looking at the internal barrel temperature, we have a couple effects. Firstly, differential expansion within monolithic materials (like a barrel) induces stress cracking when taken beyond material limits. Second, material limits includes a fatigue element; at room temperature steels only survive about half as much load as theoretically possible from the stress-strain plot once the load is applied and removed a million or so times. As temperature goes up, fatigue behavior gets worse AND yield stress goes down in a compounding effect. Third, abrasion resistance also goes down (this is hardness plus micro scale toughness and really complicated to model, but happens to be something I’ve developed models for in other applications) as temperature goes up, and smokeless powder doesn’t burn completely clean so we are basically sandblasting the inside of the barrel after the bullet gets pushed through it (which also removes a few atoms here or there of material).
My assumption is that property change at the throat is measurable every shot, but structural property change of the bulk barrel itself requires more like one shot per minute per pound of barrel.

b. It will increase the rate at which you can fire without causing issues, because the bulk barrel will stay a lower temperature for longer at the same fire rate which helps wick heat from the throat through conduction, and you can keep the throat at the same temperature spike as you fire at a higher rate (transient phenomena on top of steady state) because the total heat rejection of the system scales with the area of the outer surface.
Alternatively, firing the same rate will on the whole keep temperatures lower and life longer because the increased cooling capability and increased thermal mass mean the heat gets wicked from the throat more effectively.
That said, I think it’s more a case of “same fire rate with twice as heavy a barrel means 110% barrel life”.
Please note that the gundrilled structured barrel approach is limited by the collective thermal conductance through the interstitial material between the holes or the free convection on the exterior surface, whichever is worse. I don’t see the long and relatively thin holes doing jack or shit for heat rejection into the air, but it may technically be measurable with lab equipment.

c. As mentioned above, yes, slightly. The throat still gets ridiculously hot relative to the rest of the barrel, but if the rest of the barrel stays cooler then the throat gets slightly less ridiculously hot, which means slightly less terrible thermal fatigue and abrasion resistance.

Answering the unasked question of “how do we get a barrel to last longer”? Some combination of improvements to the following without reducing the others.
1. High-temperature fatigue properties
2. High-temperature abrasion properties (chrome linings and nitride conversions do this but can make the fatigue cracking at the X/steel interface worse)
3. Higher thermal conductivities (transient spike lowered by conducting to the rest of the barrel)
4. Higher specific heat capacities (barrel stays cooler longer being the other half of the conduction equation from the bore to the bulk, but takes longer to cool back down)

I think the new material @Frank Green has focuses on 1 and 2, and based on tooling comments I think the room temperature abrasion resistance and hardness are similar to 416R.

I would be very interested in something directionally along the lines of a rifled inconel sleeve (for high temperature properties) within a steel sleeve (because inconel structural properties are otherwise bad) within an aluminum extrusion (because steel thermal conductivities are terrible). I also know that such a barrel would be much more expensive than the life increase would justify.
 
Last edited:
So I find myself in possession of a new scope that I have lusted after for a while... and the rifle I was going to put it on is not going to carry it without major modifications, that I don't want to do.

Thus am thinking about a build.

If I were to build something in either .300 WM or .338 Lapua around a structured barrel... what would such barrel cost and what would delivery be? Who can fit one?

Thinking it would go on a 700 Long Action variant. Probably a KRG chassis. Not suppressed.

Willing to put one to the test, perhaps. What is the path forward? I'd build a rifle around one. Why not? Seems like a fun engineering exercise!

Sirhr
 
Thanks for the tag, @THEIS!

First off: I don’t know for certain and haven’t studied it specifically. As such I’m going to take a first principles approach. Also there’s a resource here that passes the sniff test and will inform a couple of the answers.

1.
Powder fires are hot, and smokeless powder deflagrates (burns) but does not detonate (at the pressures we use it at). We then contain it in an expanding vessel, and since the internal pressure is a couple orders of magnitude higher than atmospheric, there will be some PV=nRT type contributions that raise the temperature higher. Plus, the powder burn rate depends on temperature, pressure, and geometry* - it doesn’t go off all at once, it’s still burning while the bullet travels some way down the barrel, and even once it’s finished burning the gas it produces is still expanding.

*This is why you don’t just do a 1-for-1 replacement with different powders when reloading - they’re optimized for different burn rates (through both geometry and flame retardant additives) and energy contents (higher or lower energy additives) and such.

In addition to the flame, there are other heat sources including the direct friction of the bullet sliding against the barrel, more heat from internal friction in the bullet as it is deformed by the rifling, and some heat from the expansion of the steel tube that we can approximate the barrel as. Finally, some combustion of the steel tube is technically possible with excess oxygen at those temperatures but I think that is negligible given the lack of rust in the barrel immediately after a gunshot.

The link I posted suggests that the heat going into the barrel is comparable to the kinetic energy going into the bullet, especially once we include friction.

Now, it’s important to note that we don’t just have a one-and-done flame when the bullet is lodged in the throat of the barrel. We can approximate the duration of the fire in the throat as the duration of the bullet in the barrel, which means we can back-calculate that we have an extremely high temperature for a fairly short duration (which should be obvious).

Given the inherent difficulty in monitoring temperatures directly at bullet timescales, I think it’s safe to say that the highest temperature is encountered slightly after the bullet has been engraved into the rifling, and will primarily affect the throat area of the barrel. Note that while the gas temperature will start decreasing at this point, the barrel temperature close to the bore will still be increasing because the gas is much hotter and the convective heat transfer from fast-moving hot gas to the steel barrel will be much faster than the (relatively poor) thermal conduction from the inside of the barrel to the outside, where we encounter convection to slow-moving gas that’s not much colder than the outside of the barrel and therefore not transferring much heat at our timescales.

Please also note that since this is a transient phenomenon, we will not see the typical inverted half-paraboloid from a steady-state cylinder with internal heating source. Instead we will see a huge spike at the innermost surface that relatively slowly decays into such a half-paraboloid that itself is getting flatter as heat is removed. Side note: the barrelkuhl and other such widgets help because they turn the half-paraboloid temperature distribution into a full paraboloid for a given section of cylinder, and they don’t help much because the amount of air you can shove down a rifle barrel is pretty pathetic and air doesn’t have much volumetric heat capacity anyway.

In summary:
1. Likely cannot exceed that temperature (barring friction effects) and probably doesn’t (because transient phenomena with low heat relative to thermal mass of the barrel)
a. Definitely not.

2.
a. Total properties of the barrel, I’ve seen someone do full-auto dumps with an M16 and the gas tube melted shortly after the barrel was otherwise starting to glow a bit, after several hundred rounds at full cyclic rate. Bulk barrel steel structural properties don’t change until you’re pretty well on the way to the outer surface glowing, in part because geometry trumps elasticity every time, and the barrel surface - which is by definition the coldest part of a barrel in atmosphere with the barrel being shot regularly - has a massive contribution to total barrel stiffness.
Now, if we’re looking at the internal barrel temperature, we have a couple effects. Firstly, differential expansion within monolithic materials (like a barrel) induces stress cracking when taken beyond material limits. Second, material limits includes a fatigue element; at room temperature steels only survive about half as much load as theoretically possible from the stress-strain plot once the load is applied and removed a million or so times. As temperature goes up, fatigue behavior gets worse AND yield stress goes down in a compounding effect. Third, abrasion resistance also goes down (this is hardness plus micro scale toughness and really complicated to model, but happens to be something I’ve developed models for in other applications) as temperature goes up, and smokeless powder doesn’t burn completely clean so we are basically sandblasting the inside of the barrel after the bullet gets pushed through it (which also removes a few atoms here or there of material).
My assumption is that property change at the throat is measurable every shot, but structural property change of the bulk barrel itself requires more like one shot per minute per pound of barrel.

b. It will increase the rate at which you can fire without causing issues, because the bulk barrel will stay a lower temperature for longer at the same fire rate which helps wick heat from the throat through conduction, and you can keep the throat at the same temperature spike as you fire at a higher rate (transient phenomena on top of steady state) because the total heat rejection of the system scales with the area of the outer surface.
Alternatively, firing the same rate will on the whole keep temperatures lower and life longer because the increased cooling capability and increased thermal mass mean the heat gets wicked from the throat more effectively.
That said, I think it’s more a case of “same fire rate with twice as heavy a barrel means 110% barrel life”.
Please note that the gundrilled structured barrel approach is limited by the collective thermal conductance through the interstitial material between the holes or the free convection on the exterior surface, whichever is worse. I don’t see the long and relatively thin holes doing jack or shit for heat rejection into the air, but it may technically be measurable with lab equipment.

c. As mentioned above, yes, slightly. The throat still gets ridiculously hot relative to the rest of the barrel, but if the rest of the barrel stays cooler then the throat gets slightly less ridiculously hot, which means slightly less terrible thermal fatigue and abrasion resistance.

Answering the unasked question of “how do we get a barrel to last longer”? Some combination of improvements to the following without reducing the others.
1. High-temperature fatigue properties
2. High-temperature abrasion properties (chrome linings and nitride conversions do this but can make the fatigue cracking at the X/steel interface worse)
3. Higher thermal conductivities (transient spike lowered by conducting to the rest of the barrel)
4. Higher specific heat capacities (barrel stays cooler longer being the other half of the conduction equation from the bore to the bulk, but takes longer to cool back down)

I think the new material @Frank Green has focuses on 1 and 2, and based on tooling comments I think the room temperature abrasion resistance and hardness are similar to 416R.

I would be very interested in something directionally along the lines of a rifled inconel sleeve (for high temperature properties) within a steel sleeve (because inconel structural properties are otherwise bad) within an aluminum extrusion (because steel thermal conductivities are terrible). I also know that such a barrel would be much more expensive than the life increase would justify.

@gnochi

I have often wondered how much of fire cracking is related to movement of the material compared to the heat. Is it that we are seeing microscopic pores open up during expansion and possibly gases entering the pores?
 
Time to print a few of these replies out for future use.
I agree with the material first and foremost as being the primary resistor so to speak. I know Frank (we have a couple of his new material barrels on their way to us) and a couple of others are introducing "better" materials. Of course the devil's advocate is machining them as they move to current "great heat resistant materials".
Our barrels add a "heat sink" to the gun. Energy wants equilibrium
We create well over the 300% mark for surface area plus air movement thru the barrel. It is not stagnant air sitting in the barrel. We hope to actually further enhance this by capitalizing further on the venturii effect already existing. We move air twice. Once towards the muzzle and once away during a firing cycle. Not as great as a fluid but certainly much more effective than a standard barrel shape and static air.

As noted the metal goes thru its first initial transitions (mind me if I use the wrong terms- I am not a metallurgist) at the 4-500deg F value in current barrel alloys.
It will take "blank" cycles to raise it to that temperature at "blank" intervals.
If we set the heat sink at 1-2" from the throat and the throat itself has more surface area than standard the two knowns will now move to longer periods.
If our "heat sink" can be designed to hold that value in check under known inputs we have extended the ability of the material to survive the inputs noted.
I am sure I will find a couple of heat sinks in this computer, or any high end high power electric device (our CNC's).
If an engine sees at least 1000deg F (my pyros show 1500deg as a failure). The piston is aluminum, heat is being dissipated into the walls of the cylinder, oil, water, radiator, air. Reduce any of those and things go wrong. Or I change the input, fuel type and air temp. Or reduce power. Endurance motors are not built the same way a 7sec motor is. Even with a lake full of water my egt's would climb slowly but surely under a long run (more than a minute at WOT) and the only way to stop the creep was fuel type and air temp in. If I pulled back the peak power .. equilibrium again. Aluminum pistons.
Even at 1800rpm the piston will see 15firing events per second. A high cycle but lots of "heat sink".
Or a favorite of placing a baggy full of water on a fire and boil the water.
All extremes perhaps but "heat sinks" as I would understand them.
If we can increase the calorie count out the barrel to the air, equilibrium will be held with higher inputs or longer with the same inputs.

In my opinion throat erosion: the inputs
1) Material
2) Heat- energy put in.
3) Duration of heat
4) Cool down period.
5) Friction of the bullet- which occurs after initial ignition but adds to the system.
6) vibration
7) Energy out during the cycle period.

What would you add or change in order?

The material starts to rise towards that magic number of failure. However features will act different than the solid.
The edges of the lands I would think would be the first failure points: susceptible to direct input and the points that heat is trying to leave at.

As the material hits its critical point: does the throat erode (like disappear/vaporize/ablate) or is it moved out with the bullet?

Laser welding seems to be similar to the firing cycle. Energy in, time of pulse, duration of the cooling period between pulses- and the heat of the material before welding. Treatment of the material after the event to stop crack propagation is also employed. Post treatment can be very necessary as some materials will take weeks or months to show failure -even in a static condition.

Would you say the fire cracking is from the heating event or a super cooling event?

Materials seem to fail/fracture during rapid cool downs (my water cooled headers- tink tink), Forged in Fire (great show), even ceramics/glass handle the input heat- but not the cool down.
Material states seem to fail at given heat values.

Is fire cracking and erosion two different issues occurring during the same time event?

Has anybody ever analyzed a "chip" of fire cracking to see if it retains the same properties as its parent metal?
The laser will change material states/molecular structure and type- can a firing event do the same?

It's far out there but if the material state is altered so are the expansion coefficients.
The fact that fire cracking exist would indicate temps way over 500deg. For a comparison- the pans on my stove.

" I don’t see the long and relatively thin holes doing jack or shit for heat rejection into the air, but it may technically be measurable with lab equipment. "

I understand where you stand in this topic concerning our barrels. What I don't understand is why a finned heat sink works and our barrels do run cooler. Your statement the way I interpret it says neither should exist.
I think you are also saying the cross section is like a restriction to move the energy. Is that correct?

I hope this thread continues... it is now truly interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TriggerJerk!
So I find myself in possession of a new scope that I have lusted after for a while... and the rifle I was going to put it on is not going to carry it without major modifications, that I don't want to do.

Thus am thinking about a build.

If I were to build something in either .300 WM or .338 Lapua around a structured barrel... what would such barrel cost and what would delivery be? Who can fit one?

Thinking it would go on a 700 Long Action variant. Probably a KRG chassis. Not suppressed.

Willing to put one to the test, perhaps. What is the path forward? I'd build a rifle around one. Why not? Seems like a fun engineering exercise!

Sirhr
All is doable.
Reach out to us on our website (note this forum) and we can take care of all of your questions.
Delivery mainly revolves around the barrel blank. Our specific lead time is 6-8weeks at this time.
[email protected]
 
1, 2, not really in that order.

2, I have commented in other threads that with new options and tech coming out i would like to see propellants change, alot! Either "cooler" "burning" or a way to change the pressure so we don't need as much of it.

1, maybe straying to far on the base material will cause problems. I am still waiting to see the new super coatings that come out in the next 5 grs and see who can protect the base material or make it more tolerant ... i hope that made sense

Closing plane door so I'm out.
 
@gnochi

I have often wondered how much of fire cracking is related to movement of the material compared to the heat. Is it that we are seeing microscopic pores open up during expansion and possibly gases entering the pores?

If you zoom waaaaaaaaay in, you’ll see different crystals (iron, iron carbides, other metals and their carbides, intermetallics) that are stuck together in various ways with grain boundaries between them. There may be some pores as well, but sharp tools are better at cutting chips off = cutting through the crystals instead of ripping crystals out. Each of these crystals expands and contracts at different rates with heat. In general, fire cracking is a combination of some crystals expanding so much relatively that others fall out, and expanding so much relatively that others break, and the grain boundaries coming apart but not going back together.

Yes, gas getting into those boundaries is almost certainly a factor in them not coming back together - whether from micro scale corrosion or other factors - and any increased surface area inside the barrel will increase the heat transfer to the top layer of metal, and therefore make heat cracking worse, in a vicious feedback cycle.
 
Time to print a few of these replies out for future use.
I agree with the material first and foremost as being the primary resistor so to speak. I know Frank (we have a couple of his new material barrels on their way to us) and a couple of others are introducing "better" materials. Of course the devil's advocate is machining them as they move to current "great heat resistant materials".
Our barrels add a "heat sink" to the gun. Energy wants equilibrium
We create well over the 300% mark for surface area plus air movement thru the barrel. It is not stagnant air sitting in the barrel. We hope to actually further enhance this by capitalizing further on the venturii effect already existing. We move air twice. Once towards the muzzle and once away during a firing cycle. Not as great as a fluid but certainly much more effective than a standard barrel shape and static air.

As noted the metal goes thru its first initial transitions (mind me if I use the wrong terms- I am not a metallurgist) at the 4-500deg F value in current barrel alloys.
It will take "blank" cycles to raise it to that temperature at "blank" intervals.
If we set the heat sink at 1-2" from the throat and the throat itself has more surface area than standard the two knowns will now move to longer periods.
If our "heat sink" can be designed to hold that value in check under known inputs we have extended the ability of the material to survive the inputs noted.
I am sure I will find a couple of heat sinks in this computer, or any high end high power electric device (our CNC's).
If an engine sees at least 1000deg F (my pyros show 1500deg as a failure). The piston is aluminum, heat is being dissipated into the walls of the cylinder, oil, water, radiator, air. Reduce any of those and things go wrong. Or I change the input, fuel type and air temp. Or reduce power. Endurance motors are not built the same way a 7sec motor is. Even with a lake full of water my egt's would climb slowly but surely under a long run (more than a minute at WOT) and the only way to stop the creep was fuel type and air temp in. If I pulled back the peak power .. equilibrium again. Aluminum pistons.
Even at 1800rpm the piston will see 15firing events per second. A high cycle but lots of "heat sink".
Or a favorite of placing a baggy full of water on a fire and boil the water.
All extremes perhaps but "heat sinks" as I would understand them.
If we can increase the calorie count out the barrel to the air, equilibrium will be held with higher inputs or longer with the same inputs.

In my opinion throat erosion: the inputs
1) Material
2) Heat- energy put in.
3) Duration of heat
4) Cool down period.
5) Friction of the bullet- which occurs after initial ignition but adds to the system.
6) vibration
7) Energy out during the cycle period.

What would you add or change in order?

The material starts to rise towards that magic number of failure. However features will act different than the solid.
The edges of the lands I would think would be the first failure points: susceptible to direct input and the points that heat is trying to leave at.

As the material hits its critical point: does the throat erode (like disappear/vaporize/ablate) or is it moved out with the bullet?

Laser welding seems to be similar to the firing cycle. Energy in, time of pulse, duration of the cooling period between pulses- and the heat of the material before welding. Treatment of the material after the event to stop crack propagation is also employed. Post treatment can be very necessary as some materials will take weeks or months to show failure -even in a static condition.

Would you say the fire cracking is from the heating event or a super cooling event?

Materials seem to fail/fracture during rapid cool downs (my water cooled headers- tink tink), Forged in Fire (great show), even ceramics/glass handle the input heat- but not the cool down.
Material states seem to fail at given heat values.

Is fire cracking and erosion two different issues occurring during the same time event?

Has anybody ever analyzed a "chip" of fire cracking to see if it retains the same properties as its parent metal?
The laser will change material states/molecular structure and type- can a firing event do the same?

It's far out there but if the material state is altered so are the expansion coefficients.
The fact that fire cracking exist would indicate temps way over 500deg. For a comparison- the pans on my stove.

" I don’t see the long and relatively thin holes doing jack or shit for heat rejection into the air, but it may technically be measurable with lab equipment. "

I understand where you stand in this topic concerning our barrels. What I don't understand is why a finned heat sink works and our barrels do run cooler. Your statement the way I interpret it says neither should exist.
I think you are also saying the cross section is like a restriction to move the energy. Is that correct?

I hope this thread continues... it is now truly interesting.

Strongly agree with most of this. In general if the barrels were marketed only as “look it’s 100x stiffer than anything else on the market at only 3x the weight, and therefore much less sensitive to the deflection during shooting that drives load development, etc., and yes technically it’s probably slightly better barrel life because of improved cooling during long strings of fire” there’d be a lot less argument.
  • I would be interested in seeing cooling data based on x firing cycle with the structural holes plugged vs open. I think the 300% surface area increase of the outside is much more of a factor in measured throat temperature. (Note that measured throat temperature and the throat temperature during firing are very different numbers; temperature measurement is inherently slow and 10x measurement speed is 100x cost and faster sensors can’t survive the motion of deflagrating air anyway.)
  • The heat sinking effect is a major factor for sure in the steady state, but the thermal conductivity of steel and the convection coefficient at the bore almost certainly dominate the transient effects, which are the biggest factor. In other words, no matter what you do, you’re going to exceed “happy” temperatures in the bore due to the sheer temperatures and timescales involved. The entire lifetime of a rifle barrel is on the order of seconds; it’s some seriously rough conditions in there.
  • Most heat sink applications are better called “convection aids” and see a several thousand percent surface area increase to truly keep something near ambient temperature, and are made of highly thermally conductive materials (like aluminum and copper) which steels aren’t. A true “heat sink” is something like a body of water where the temperature just doesn’t change no matter what you do to it.
  • Excellent example with the egts in a lake full of water.
  • Agreed that the edges of the land are worst; they have higher surface area exposed to gas AND less cross section to conduct heat to the rest of the barrel.
  • I agree those are the major inputs to throat erosion, and I think that’s the correct order of importance with current technology. Doing anything about 2 requires a major increase in efficiency - good luck, seriously, if you’re looking at that problem.
  • I expect an order-of-magnitude even mix of material from the last shot coming out with the bullet and material from the current shot being blasted out with the powder gas. I wouldn’t say that vaporize or ablate is correct since we’re nowhere near hot enough to cause a true phase transition (meta phases with crystalline grains excepted, but those are def staying solid).
  • The difference with laser welding is much higher power concentration and no temperature dependency - it’s a true melting and vaporization process that conveniently deposits back where we want it. I’ve done some work with mixed-material laser welding which is only slightly less of a bitch than mixed-material traditional welding. Crack propagation is a nightmare, agreed.
  • I think it’s best to say fire cracking in rifle barrels specifically is a differential thermal expansion issue first and foremost. Without using a blowtorch set slightly below the melting point it’s easier to cool the surface of things quicker than heating them up which generally holds true
  • Yes, fire cracking and erosion are different simultaneous events, which each of them making the other worse on future cycles
  • Internal holes are always worse than external fins and such because free convection is driven by gravitic buoyancy, and the speed of air movement that drives convection is dependent on the column height in a gravitational reference frame. Internal holes have a shorter column height by definition. Even once you have forced convection it takes extra pressure to send something though a hole with the convective-driven boundary layer making the effective cross section of useful flow even smaller, before even getting into flow friction effects. I’m not saying there isn’t any effect, I’m saying that the feasible surface area increase and the flow impediments are inherently inferior for thermal transfer to something like the JP barrel sleeves for the same amount of mass. I’m honestly curious about the plugged/unplugged hole side by side. That said the JP sleeves have zero harmonic benefit - as with all things it’s an optimization problem, and I think y’all have one of the best possible barrels for no-thought-needed load development and such.
 
Strongly agree with most of this. In general if the barrels were marketed only as “look it’s 100x stiffer than anything else on the market at only 3x the weight, and therefore much less sensitive to the deflection during shooting that drives load development, etc., and yes technically it’s probably slightly better barrel life because of improved cooling during long strings of fire” there’d be a lot less argument.
  • I would be interested in seeing cooling data based on x firing cycle with the structural holes plugged vs open. I think the 300% surface area increase of the outside is much more of a factor in measured throat temperature. (Note that measured throat temperature and the throat temperature during firing are very different numbers; temperature measurement is inherently slow and 10x measurement speed is 100x cost and faster sensors can’t survive the motion of deflagrating air anyway.)
  • The heat sinking effect is a major factor for sure in the steady state, but the thermal conductivity of steel and the convection coefficient at the bore almost certainly dominate the transient effects, which are the biggest factor. In other words, no matter what you do, you’re going to exceed “happy” temperatures in the bore due to the sheer temperatures and timescales involved. The entire lifetime of a rifle barrel is on the order of seconds; it’s some seriously rough conditions in there.
  • Most heat sink applications are better called “convection aids” and see a several thousand percent surface area increase to truly keep something near ambient temperature, and are made of highly thermally conductive materials (like aluminum and copper) which steels aren’t. A true “heat sink” is something like a body of water where the temperature just doesn’t change no matter what you do to it.
  • Excellent example with the egts in a lake full of water.
  • Agreed that the edges of the land are worst; they have higher surface area exposed to gas AND less cross section to conduct heat to the rest of the barrel.
  • I agree those are the major inputs to throat erosion, and I think that’s the correct order of importance with current technology. Doing anything about 2 requires a major increase in efficiency - good luck, seriously, if you’re looking at that problem.
  • I expect an order-of-magnitude even mix of material from the last shot coming out with the bullet and material from the current shot being blasted out with the powder gas. I wouldn’t say that vaporize or ablate is correct since we’re nowhere near hot enough to cause a true phase transition (meta phases with crystalline grains excepted, but those are def staying solid).
  • The difference with laser welding is much higher power concentration and no temperature dependency - it’s a true melting and vaporization process that conveniently deposits back where we want it. I’ve done some work with mixed-material laser welding which is only slightly less of a bitch than mixed-material traditional welding. Crack propagation is a nightmare, agreed.
  • I think it’s best to say fire cracking in rifle barrels specifically is a differential thermal expansion issue first and foremost. Without using a blowtorch set slightly below the melting point it’s easier to cool the surface of things quicker than heating them up which generally holds true
  • Yes, fire cracking and erosion are different simultaneous events, which each of them making the other worse on future cycles
  • Internal holes are always worse than external fins and such because free convection is driven by gravitic buoyancy, and the speed of air movement that drives convection is dependent on the column height in a gravitational reference frame. Internal holes have a shorter column height by definition. Even once you have forced convection it takes extra pressure to send something though a hole with the convective-driven boundary layer making the effective cross section of useful flow even smaller, before even getting into flow friction effects. I’m not saying there isn’t any effect, I’m saying that the feasible surface area increase and the flow impediments are inherently inferior for thermal transfer to something like the JP barrel sleeves for the same amount of mass. I’m honestly curious about the plugged/unplugged hole side by side. That said the JP sleeves have zero harmonic benefit - as with all things it’s an optimization problem, and I think y’all have one of the best possible barrels for no-thought-needed load development and such.
Thank you sir for your efforts in this arena.

Perhaps we could speak about a consulting avenue: as noted this is phase one for our barrels and the next levels will need expertise such as yours to be successful versus swinging at the weeds trying to find a rose.

I really like your point of plugging the cores. That one slipped right on by me as a direct comparison.
As a note the cores are between .257 and .375" diameters typically. Depending on what a persons use is we drive the larger cores for harmonic stiffness and increased area.
If we "sun soak" barrels to 140deg and then set them back in ambient shade our barrels will cool back to ambient in well under 50% of the period of the standard barrel. The reason I use "well under" is for 3rd parties to fill in the blank.
Potentially some "chimney effect" is occurring as on large caliber charges you will see "smoke" drift out of the ports of the chamber for several long seconds after a shot. Just as we see evidence of a very high velocity event occur at the exit side of things.
Not arguing- the cores- it is the least efficient of the set for cooling: part of my thought was the thickness of the "I" beam section. It appears (in my mind only) that as we reduce the thickness of the material its ability to dissipate heat also changes. Area vs Mass? or just plain thermal activity. Squeezing down a stream increases velocity. Do thermodynamics act the same?
One of the things in my past that we had to do was bond a very high coefficient of expansion material to a low expansion device (D2, M2 types) and along with bonding hold specific locations of attached devices to within 25microns. Large in some worlds but hard to do in others. The D2 would expand a measurable .009" overall at 500deg. (I imagine the 416 materials are beyond that) and the other material attached at least 4x that value - it was liquid at this temperature. The only way we could retain positions was to vary the calculation of the expansion coefficient across the D2 as it was applied to the tooling. In fact multiple zones. The closer it got to the edge the greater the number.
With all of that story - high efficiency radiators pack more and smaller fins in place led me to look at the cross section of the beam. There is a reason the values exist along with the remaining wall of the OD.
When we tested various thread pitches and depths we looked at area vs number of tips present. The higher number of tips was measurably superior.
My past world brought me from this world, to the micron world, to the angstrom world. Rules were no longer set in stone. Small objects appears in many cases to "object" to our normal world. What was you term " a real B". My thought is that heat might act similarly. The very tips of the rifling could be under slightly different rules than the base material.

Again - for you and anybody out there- we are in need for serious thermodynamic calcs and complex shapes "strength" calcs.

Thank you to this forum for the enlightening conversations.
John
 
love the thread so far...its coming around to info not rock throwing

"If we "sun soak" barrels to 140deg and then set them back in ambient shade our barrels will cool back to ambient in well under 50% of the period of the standard barrel. The reason I use "well under" is for 3rd parties to fill in the blank."

where was the temperature taken after cool down stage?
external or internal/bore


thanks
 
Strongly agree with most of this. In general if the barrels were marketed only as “look it’s 100x stiffer than anything else on the market at only 3x the weight, and therefore much less sensitive to the deflection during shooting that drives load development, etc., and yes technically it’s probably slightly better barrel life because of improved cooling during long strings of fire” there’d be a lot less argument.
  • I would be interested in seeing cooling data based on x firing cycle with the structural holes plugged vs open. I think the 300% surface area increase of the outside is much more of a factor in measured throat temperature. (Note that measured throat temperature and the throat temperature during firing are very different numbers; temperature measurement is inherently slow and 10x measurement speed is 100x cost and faster sensors can’t survive the motion of deflagrating air anyway.)
  • The heat sinking effect is a major factor for sure in the steady state, but the thermal conductivity of steel and the convection coefficient at the bore almost certainly dominate the transient effects, which are the biggest factor. In other words, no matter what you do, you’re going to exceed “happy” temperatures in the bore due to the sheer temperatures and timescales involved. The entire lifetime of a rifle barrel is on the order of seconds; it’s some seriously rough conditions in there.
  • Most heat sink applications are better called “convection aids” and see a several thousand percent surface area increase to truly keep something near ambient temperature, and are made of highly thermally conductive materials (like aluminum and copper) which steels aren’t. A true “heat sink” is something like a body of water where the temperature just doesn’t change no matter what you do to it.
  • Excellent example with the egts in a lake full of water.
  • Agreed that the edges of the land are worst; they have higher surface area exposed to gas AND less cross section to conduct heat to the rest of the barrel.
  • I agree those are the major inputs to throat erosion, and I think that’s the correct order of importance with current technology. Doing anything about 2 requires a major increase in efficiency - good luck, seriously, if you’re looking at that problem.
  • I expect an order-of-magnitude even mix of material from the last shot coming out with the bullet and material from the current shot being blasted out with the powder gas. I wouldn’t say that vaporize or ablate is correct since we’re nowhere near hot enough to cause a true phase transition (meta phases with crystalline grains excepted, but those are def staying solid).
  • The difference with laser welding is much higher power concentration and no temperature dependency - it’s a true melting and vaporization process that conveniently deposits back where we want it. I’ve done some work with mixed-material laser welding which is only slightly less of a bitch than mixed-material traditional welding. Crack propagation is a nightmare, agreed.
  • I think it’s best to say fire cracking in rifle barrels specifically is a differential thermal expansion issue first and foremost. Without using a blowtorch set slightly below the melting point it’s easier to cool the surface of things quicker than heating them up which generally holds true
  • Yes, fire cracking and erosion are different simultaneous events, which each of them making the other worse on future cycles
  • Internal holes are always worse than external fins and such because free convection is driven by gravitic buoyancy, and the speed of air movement that drives convection is dependent on the column height in a gravitational reference frame. Internal holes have a shorter column height by definition. Even once you have forced convection it takes extra pressure to send something though a hole with the convective-driven boundary layer making the effective cross section of useful flow even smaller, before even getting into flow friction effects. I’m not saying there isn’t any effect, I’m saying that the feasible surface area increase and the flow impediments are inherently inferior for thermal transfer to something like the JP barrel sleeves for the same amount of mass. I’m honestly curious about the plugged/unplugged hole side by side. That said the JP sleeves have zero harmonic benefit - as with all things it’s an optimization problem, and I think y’all have one of the best possible barrels for no-thought-needed load development and such.
Your note on #2... energy in. We are addressing that specifically also on this next generation... but not from the direction you are most likely thinking of. A step off of the deep end ... but I know it works in other realms.
 
Hi,

Why are we still discussing a barrels external temperature, especially when referencing an exterior heat source?

There is pretty much never been a barrel that wore out due to an exterior heat source, lol.

For sake of conversation lets say that everyone agrees logically that more surface area on the exterior of the barrel will heat up slower and cool off faster.....

The question still remains....what does that have anything to do with the throat area that sees a 3300+ Deg F burn rate since the barrel temp will not ever raise higher than that flash temperature?

Sincerely,
Theis
 
Don’t doubt the innovation happening at tacomhq. Everyone wants the tarac series to make the m107 useful again. The tarac systems alone are a big deal.

The structured barrels could have a ton of applicability, in machine guns as well. The ability to cool more quickly and tighten up a beaten zone would allow you increased firing rates and precision.
 
im all for innovation (actually more than most) but the machine gun part is a little far fetched

we not talking water cooling like a WWI maxim

you could slide base board heating fins over a M240 barrel and your not going to gain any measurable cooling after some long bursts at bad guys

heat sinks can only do so much without active fans or liquid being moved, thats why all computers have heatsinks and fans

rifle barrels arent like a car radiator with a water pump

its all just surface area, material, and temp differential

the lewis gun tried it 100 years ago with the fins in a shroud...then came the quick change barrel
 
love the thread so far...its coming around to info not rock throwing

"If we "sun soak" barrels to 140deg and then set them back in ambient shade our barrels will cool back to ambient in well under 50% of the period of the standard barrel. The reason I use "well under" is for 3rd parties to fill in the blank."

where was the temperature taken after cool down stage?
external or internal/bore


thanks
The series of barrels, standards, our standard finishes, silica coatings... where all soaked in a direct sunlight. supported on 2x4 material setting on a large piece of plywood to create a standard background. Soak time was 4hrs. We also measured how fast the barrels were heat gaining from the sun- the heat gain from the sun lowers the delta for the temperature failure point.
They were then set in to a shaded area on the same components.
Values were considered met when no area on or in the barrel could be identified that exceeded the shaded area background ambient.
Typically when we look at temps we measure multiple other surfaces, wood, bricks, concrete looking for a line of sun soaked ambient and look for deviation from that point.
We shot with a moderator (you might know him) last year in Colorado. The shooters themselves were getting their own IR guns to make measurements. The 6mm they were shooting rose 10deg from the sun soaked ambient after 50rds- their measurements. One gentlemen even noted that our shooting barrel was cooler than his barrel just sitting there in the sun - sun soaked ambient. His finish on his barrel was absorbing more sun supplied energy in heat than our was producing in total shooting.
If you watch the video from K2M last year- the .375 Cheytac rose 12deg after 13 shots. It went from 72deg to 84deg (shooting in a shaded overhang). Another well known Rifle Guy and blogger was there to witness the shootings. Watch his video... he is actually a bit of at a loss for words.
Unlike most barrels a fired string has to radiate to the outside. The larger the barrel the cooler the barrel - until that internal value makes it to the outside. Then it takes blank time to move that heat out of the solid. Our barrel is moving heat on multiple surface (cores potentially the least amount) but the big OD and 30tpi adds a lot of surface area.
You really want to cool our barrel fast- shoot the bores (not the shooting bore) with brake clean or the like. Chillers or cool air would be easy to add for recreational guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brianf
Only a matter of time before somone is wrapping a fluid cooled copper heatsink around the barrel and a tucking a fan cooled heat exchanger in the forend of the chassis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: camocorvette
Only a matter of time before somone is wrapping a fluid cooled copper heatsink around the barrel and a tucking a fan cooled heat exchanger in the forend of the chassis.

have been playing with something along those lines in my basement off and on
 
im all for innovation (actually more than most) but the machine gun part is a little far fetched

we not talking water cooling like a WWI maxim

you could slide base board heating fins over a M240 barrel and your not going to gain any measurable cooling after some long bursts at bad guys

heat sinks can only do so much without active fans or liquid being moved, thats why all computers have heatsinks and fans

rifle barrels arent like a car radiator with a water pump

its all just surface area, material, and temp differential

the lewis gun tried it 100 years ago with the fins in a shroud...then came the quick change barrel
Overall I agree with you Brian- add enough energy and most things are not going to be to happy.
That is specifically why this is a first gen barrel. The next series are all about heat and throat life. We also expect them to be even "stiffer" harmonically. Key word "stiffer"... simple word for the action to be controlled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1moaoff and brianf
Only a matter of time before somone is wrapping a fluid cooled copper heatsink around the barrel and a tucking a fan cooled heat exchanger in the forend of the chassis.
Kind of like a collar... fitted around our barrel feeding the cooling holes... hmm...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2aBaC̶a̶
Only a matter of time before somone is wrapping a fluid cooled copper heatsink around the barrel and a tucking a fan cooled heat exchanger in the forend of the chassis.

There’s already fireforming rigs that have a shroud around barrel. Use a pump and cooler full of ice water. Not the same as your example, but it’s being done.
 
The tarac systems alone are a big deal.

Hi,

That they are, nobody has said anything negative about them.
Prism and barrels are completely different beasts :)

Shit, we can look at the HTI manual from 20 years ago where it was listed that a prism scope would be needed in order for optics to keep up with the ELR progression.

Sincerely,
Theis

In regards to cooling systems.....BR guys 25 years ago had tubes they would stick down their barrels and flow rubbing alcohol through to cool barrels off between strings. Then that transitioned to wrapping those tubes around the exterior of the barrel while firing. (that concept lasted for about 5 minutes because external cooling did not do anything for the barrel internal temperatures during actual firing.

Sincerely,
Theis
 
The question still remains....what does that have anything to do with the throat area that sees a 3300+ Deg F burn rate since the barrel temp will not ever raise higher than that flash temperature?
little to nothing.....thats generally why pencil barrels last about as long as bull barrels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THEIS