Just wondering, what are the benefits? How is accuracy improved?
- Thread starter nic_bravo_whiskey
- Start date
No rust is the only benefit.
*doesn't rust as easy, and is more expensive
Supposedly the throat on a stainless barrel will last longer.
So, no benefit with accuracy?
I'd be surprised if there is a definitive answer to that. I read every discussion I see about barrels. One thing I have noticed is Frank Green uses a lot of chromoly barrels on his personal rifles. I don't know what that means. Maybe he likes rusty barrels.
my barrelsmith said chromoly barrels are better, so I got one and so far I like it.
Ease of maintenance is the big plus, cause it won't rust if ya miss something. Most of mine are stainless, when I can get them in it.
No difference in accuracy or barrel life for the most part. If I had to pick one to last longer I lean towards the C.M. Why? Seems tougher and more abrasion resistance. Also the feed back we get on the ammunition test barrels (which are mostly made out of c.m. steel) is that the c.m. seems to last longer as well. So it's not just me saying blah blah blah.....
Keep in mind the type of powder, bullets, chamber, how the barrel is being cleaned etc...all effect barrel life.
Yes s.s. is more forgiving when it comes to rust vs. the c.m. but s.s. will corrode/pit as well. You still have to take care of it and not ignore it!
C.M. is tougher in extreme environments/temperature.
I've got c.m. and s.s. barrels on my guns. I'm happy with both!
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
Keep in mind the type of powder, bullets, chamber, how the barrel is being cleaned etc...all effect barrel life.
Yes s.s. is more forgiving when it comes to rust vs. the c.m. but s.s. will corrode/pit as well. You still have to take care of it and not ignore it!
C.M. is tougher in extreme environments/temperature.
I've got c.m. and s.s. barrels on my guns. I'm happy with both!
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
Thank you sir!
Once when I was little probably around 15-16 I had a talk to Tim Gardner when I was in the shop. I asked the difference between the two. He said that there is a very very tiny difference in accuracy however you will never notice it. The chrome moly is suppose to be more accurate. But like he said the difference is unnoticeable so don't worry about it they might as well be the same. The chrome moly will last longer as far as barrel life. Stainless the obvious barrel corrosion resistance. Also metal wise the chrome moly can cool quicker than the stainless.
I do tell guys the c.m. might have more affinity for the copper or what I say it shows it easier than the s.s. It's like taking chalk and writing on a black board. The white chalk stands out like a sore thumb but take the same white chalk and write on a concrete sidewalk it's there but doesn't show up as good.
You can get into the heat treatment can be different etc...but in the end if the steel is made properly I don't see a difference.
The c.m. if you melonite it the corrosion resistance goes up. If you melonite the s.s. corrosion resistance goes down.
Just this last Saturday I shot a a rifle I'm rebuilding for hunting. C.M. barrel chambered in 7x57 ackley improved. 1-9 twist on a 1917 Enfield Winchester action. I pillar bedded the old crappy sporter stock. Fired two rounds to test fire etc...and cleaned the barrel before mounting the scope. Then after mounting the scope I fired 15 rounds thru it. A few 150 gr. bullets but mostly 139gr. Hornady SST's. used the first 9 rounds to get a nice zero on the scope etc....and clocked some of the loads thru the chronograph to see what I was getting for velocity fire forming the cases.
Any ways the last 6 rounds I fired thru it I pulled one round out of the group but the elevation/water line was excellent and 5 of the 6 rounds went into a nice .451".
All this and the bolt still cocks on closing and fire forming brass and no load development etc.....
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
You can get into the heat treatment can be different etc...but in the end if the steel is made properly I don't see a difference.
The c.m. if you melonite it the corrosion resistance goes up. If you melonite the s.s. corrosion resistance goes down.
Just this last Saturday I shot a a rifle I'm rebuilding for hunting. C.M. barrel chambered in 7x57 ackley improved. 1-9 twist on a 1917 Enfield Winchester action. I pillar bedded the old crappy sporter stock. Fired two rounds to test fire etc...and cleaned the barrel before mounting the scope. Then after mounting the scope I fired 15 rounds thru it. A few 150 gr. bullets but mostly 139gr. Hornady SST's. used the first 9 rounds to get a nice zero on the scope etc....and clocked some of the loads thru the chronograph to see what I was getting for velocity fire forming the cases.
Any ways the last 6 rounds I fired thru it I pulled one round out of the group but the elevation/water line was excellent and 5 of the 6 rounds went into a nice .451".
All this and the bolt still cocks on closing and fire forming brass and no load development etc.....
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
I've searched this subject and haven't really found any good info on any forum. Thanks for your info.
Most br rigs sport SS barrels. We clean meticulously so rust is not an issue or a reason SS is preferred
So, why are SS barrels preferred in BR?
One is old wise tails.... two and probably the most realistic is those guys don't put/do any finish work to the barrels. Some of the guys don't even polish them. Another idea is that the s.s. breaks in easier than c.m. and to some extent I do believe this to be true but again in the end it doesn't mean anything.
Got a couple of customers who had custom BAT Machine actions that were made in c.m. steel. They had the actions blued and wanted the barrels to match. They've taken them to matches and have won with them.
One branch of the service that we make barrels for the sniper rifles they spec. c.m. steel barrels. We've made several hundred etc....and have not had a complaint on a one.
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
Benefits of stainless vs carbon steel
Stainless is softer. The throat wears differently between the two.
Other than that, speaking right now and today, before looking at a CM barrel I would want to know where the barrel steel was coming from and whether the company making the CM blanks had a proven recipe.
CM is not very popular compared to Stainless, and modern steel is not easy to make well. There are not that many US sources for it. So I would want to know if it is US sourced, or German, or Slovak steel.
I am not a metallurgist, so Maybe Frank Green could elaborate on what I just posted.
Stainless is softer. The throat wears differently between the two.
Other than that, speaking right now and today, before looking at a CM barrel I would want to know where the barrel steel was coming from and whether the company making the CM blanks had a proven recipe.
CM is not very popular compared to Stainless, and modern steel is not easy to make well. There are not that many US sources for it. So I would want to know if it is US sourced, or German, or Slovak steel.
I am not a metallurgist, so Maybe Frank Green could elaborate on what I just posted.
Last edited:
Yea o.k.? Prove it!
I just took out for the third time that 1917 Enfield with a new barrel in 7x57AI. First shot with a cold clean barrel went right to the point of aim at a 114 yards.
I've seen plenty of s.s. barrels not go to the point of aim on the first shot.
Guys there are so many variables when you talk point of aim and cold bore shot etc......How many rounds are on the barrel? How is it being cleaned? Is a guy leaving some oil/solvent in the bore? You can keep the list going.......and it really doesn't have anything to do with the steel.
Usually the first shot will be slower than the rest. Say around 30-50fps. and at short range you probably won't see it on paper but you will see it at long range. This is because the powder and copper fouling will act as a lubricant for a lack of a better description.
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
CM is still more popular than you think. We make barrels for two different branches of the Service and they spec. C.M. Steel. Also it's been noticed in the desert/sandy conditions the c.m. stood up to wear in the chamber just from the rounds being cycled in and out of the gun better in c.m. than in the s.s. which I go back to saying I lean towards c.m. lasting longer as it seems to be tougher/more abrasion resistant.
90% of the ammunition test barrels we make are made out of c.m. steel.
The comment about c.m. steel not being made as good etc...then s.s.? O.K.? Based on what? I just got a call from another barrel maker yesterday asking us a question about some s.s. they just got and are having a hard to machining it. The amount of problems you can say about c.m. you can say about s.s.
One s.s. barrel supplier here in the States was/is buying the ignots from China the last I heard and they we're having a mill here in the States melt it/roll it for them etc...into bars and selling it as barrel steel. They tried for a while to get us to buy it. I asked for a guarantee that if there are any problems with it that they take it back and pay us for lost labor etc...guess what? They wouldn't do it. I told them I cannot buy any of it if your not going to stand behind it. Never have and we never will.
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
We buy our steel directly from the mill. If we have any problems with it we deal with one person, one phone call. We don't buy from a warehouse per say.
Benefits of stainless vs carbon steel
Frank, thanks for the info.
Isn't the usual problem with bad SS that it is too soft rather than too hard?
Again, I am not a metallurgist, but I was under the impression that each steel mill has its own 'recipe' for its offering of barrel steel, and that one of the most popular mills that produced CM barrels had suffered a brain-drain recently which sapped much of that institutional knowledge when the people left.
BTW, this reminds me that I have another magnum GT barrel to order from you guys. Maybe I should ask for it to be CM?
Frank, thanks for the info.
Isn't the usual problem with bad SS that it is too soft rather than too hard?
Again, I am not a metallurgist, but I was under the impression that each steel mill has its own 'recipe' for its offering of barrel steel, and that one of the most popular mills that produced CM barrels had suffered a brain-drain recently which sapped much of that institutional knowledge when the people left.
BTW, this reminds me that I have another magnum GT barrel to order from you guys. Maybe I should ask for it to be CM?
Last edited:
That's kind of a tough question to answer as I cannot speak for every barrel maker or gun manufacturer. I've seen specs. on barrel steel ranging from 21Rc to around 35Rc. When we order our steel from the mill we spec. 30Rc for both s.s. and the c.m. the steel mills usually have a +/- like 2 or 4 Rc. tolerance.
Either way you look at it getting towards 21Rc is getting to soft in my book. Most likely safe and just fine but barrel life will be questionable is the first thing that comes to my mind.
Some manufacturers doing button rifling like the softer steel as it buttons easier but again I'm not speaking for anyone here.
Haven't heard of a steel maker having a problem lately with c.m. and people leaving the mill etc....there was a problem about 4 or 5 years ago where a bunch of people got laid off and then the mill went into bankruptcy etc...but they only made s.s. and they had quality problems etc...not going to say who.
Getting a c.m. or s.s. barrel? Personal preference.
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
Generally speaking? Might foul a little more might not. It shows the copper easier. Reread my first post......
Rust? Yea it rust easier but again the s.s. will corrode and pit. You still have to take care of it. As far as rusting goes though. I've hunted in pouring rain and in snow storms. You don't see any rust on any of my guns from being out in the elements. Again take care of your rifle.
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
LW50? Pretty hard ss i hear. I still ser a bunch of SS barrels at br matches, i figure those guys like the accuracy better. Of course some things done in br is because " thats what so and so used to win". I had always heard ss stood up to throat erosion better. Also heard ss, real cold weather light contour, and big chamber pressure are best avoided. Frank, what's ur take on the last 2 points here gunshop rumors or some truth?
Reread my very first post.
No accuracy difference.........if that was the case why do I have military snipers shooting our c.m. barrels and some of the groups they are shooting at 500 to a 1k yards etc...with box ammo almost come close to some of the national records? Just recently I was told (cannot remember if it was a .300 win mag or .338 Lapua) a new shooter to the outfit was holding head shots at 500 yards. Groups were a little over 1" and he was still holding head shots out to 700 yards or so.
S.S. does not necessarily stand up to throat wear better......Yes the two steels wear differently but if I had to pick one I would say the c.m. would hold up better. It's tougher/more abrasion resistant. That's why I say I lean towards a c.m. barrel lasting longer. Also the throat seems to take longer to break in on a c.m. vs. a s.s. barrel.
Some barrel makers year back and still to this day only make barrels out of S.S. So if they were the barrel maker of choice years ago that is probably one reason why s.s. seems to be preferred.
I don't have exact numbers but the reason the c.m. was picked for some of the current sniper guns being built/used is because the guns have to operate from temperatures from around -40 or -60 to like +140. I was told by one of the engineers that the c.m. stood up better/stronger at the cold temperatures.
Again reread my earlier posts.
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
Last edited:
I've had a bunch of rifles in my lifetime a mix of CM and SS. There were good and bad shooters in each group. As to rust, my experience matches Frank's. Years of hunting and shooting with no rust. I know it is fashionable these days to "run them hard", but I guess I just learned differently. My dad taught me to care for my rifles and maintain them before tending to my own comfort. With a little TLC, CM holds up very well.
Since Frank has been kind enough to provide professional experience to this discussion, I'd like to thank him for it. Of all the barrel makers around he seems to be the most pro-active at dispelling myths and being transparent why his company does certain things, I commend that.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to build on the question asked of him about SS vs. CM in cold weather operations.
The SS used in barrels has a reduced fatigue strength capability at extremely cold temps. That is a fact, but it is very often (and in this case too) a mis-applied direction for picking CM over SS anywhere in a hunting rifle.
The fatigue strength is reduced at temps below -25F on the curve that I'm looking at (I wish I could post it, but it's proprietary to the company that signs my paycheck.)
The issue with only that information however: What is the cycle count on that curve where the reduction begins?
For the one I"m seeing, it's STARTING at 10,000 cycles with the actual reduction in properties not dropping below 95% capability until 50,000 cycles. I'd LOVE to see a magnum rifle barrel that has 10,000 rounds through it and it still shoots, let alone 50,000 rounds.
The static strength (low cycle or 1 time loading) has a reduction in strength at -25F as well, it's 0.98 or 98% capability. At -60F it is 0.94 or 94% capability. The curve is not linear.
So, we have the case that the rumor is based in reality:
Reduced fatigue and static strength at very cold (for human) temps. How does that end up affecting us as shooters choosing a rifle barrel contour?
Easy answer is that it doesn't. We are functionally limited from getting a magnum rifle barrel in 416R SS to even show up on the fatigue curve so that's a non-factor.
Next comes the static strength concerns and the 94% capability.
To debunk that myth let's look at the SAAMI requirements of proof loads and realize that the Proof loading for a magnum like the 300WM is Max Average Proof = 91,500psi with the Extreme Value SD of 16,800 psi for the receiver and barrel spec to be safe in an overpressure event.
The brass is liquefied and blown all over the place for an event like that, yet the barrel and receiver must remain "safe" at room temp.
What does that mean for us at -60F? 94% capability is 86.01ksi +/- 16.8ksi EV on that barrel.
At the end of the day, the barrels might behave better for CM over SS, and there is a reduction to speak of, but the functional impact of that reduce is nil.
Pick your poison and run with it. Take care of the rifle, take care of your feet, rock on IMO.
ETA: I forgot the source for my SAAMI Pressure information.
http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/206.pdf
The last 10 pages of that report are enlightening.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to build on the question asked of him about SS vs. CM in cold weather operations.
The SS used in barrels has a reduced fatigue strength capability at extremely cold temps. That is a fact, but it is very often (and in this case too) a mis-applied direction for picking CM over SS anywhere in a hunting rifle.
The fatigue strength is reduced at temps below -25F on the curve that I'm looking at (I wish I could post it, but it's proprietary to the company that signs my paycheck.)
The issue with only that information however: What is the cycle count on that curve where the reduction begins?
For the one I"m seeing, it's STARTING at 10,000 cycles with the actual reduction in properties not dropping below 95% capability until 50,000 cycles. I'd LOVE to see a magnum rifle barrel that has 10,000 rounds through it and it still shoots, let alone 50,000 rounds.
The static strength (low cycle or 1 time loading) has a reduction in strength at -25F as well, it's 0.98 or 98% capability. At -60F it is 0.94 or 94% capability. The curve is not linear.
So, we have the case that the rumor is based in reality:
Reduced fatigue and static strength at very cold (for human) temps. How does that end up affecting us as shooters choosing a rifle barrel contour?
Easy answer is that it doesn't. We are functionally limited from getting a magnum rifle barrel in 416R SS to even show up on the fatigue curve so that's a non-factor.
Next comes the static strength concerns and the 94% capability.
To debunk that myth let's look at the SAAMI requirements of proof loads and realize that the Proof loading for a magnum like the 300WM is Max Average Proof = 91,500psi with the Extreme Value SD of 16,800 psi for the receiver and barrel spec to be safe in an overpressure event.
The brass is liquefied and blown all over the place for an event like that, yet the barrel and receiver must remain "safe" at room temp.
What does that mean for us at -60F? 94% capability is 86.01ksi +/- 16.8ksi EV on that barrel.
At the end of the day, the barrels might behave better for CM over SS, and there is a reduction to speak of, but the functional impact of that reduce is nil.
Pick your poison and run with it. Take care of the rifle, take care of your feet, rock on IMO.
ETA: I forgot the source for my SAAMI Pressure information.
http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/206.pdf
The last 10 pages of that report are enlightening.
One your welcome!
Two I couldn't have said it better on pretty much everything else.
Yes in the real/practical world will the average guy be shooting that many rounds thru the barrels and also will they be taking it out in those extreme temperatures? In all likely hood, no! I've been out hunting when the temperature was down around -10 and I wasn't out for a long time. Not my idea of fun!
Also as a side note we've talked to the steel manufactures about the strength of s.s. used in barrels etc.....some say yes and some say no. I've asked them to put it in writing as well but cannot get anyone to commit to things. That's why we have a minimum we will do on the contours in s.s.
Also what is hard for us is you get a guy who wants a feather weight contour in s.s. and we could say yes/maybe etc....but those contours are meant for standard calibers and not magnums. The magnum rounds the chambers are longer/deeper into the barrel and the steel starts getting to thin and we have no control over what a barrel is chambered in once it leaves here.
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
Quite right! This is something that I didn't discuss/overlooked as I focused on the environmental factors, you're spot on here. The risk that comes from fitting a featherweight contour with a short shank can leave a dangerously thin area at the front of the chamber and it doesn't really matter hot or cold, a pressure vessel without enough material to contain the pressure is recipe for bad news.
The limit being "net section" (wall thickness) and the net section required is very similar for a 300WM or a 308 since they operate at similar pressures, the problem is making sure that the section remains once the barrel is chambered. AR-15 barrels can get away with much smaller shanks due to the simple fact that the 223 is so much smaller than a "full size" rifle cartridge like a 22-250
Frank,
Now if you guys could just get a rush on your Titanium barrels, it'll be all good.............................................
Now if you guys could just get a rush on your Titanium barrels, it'll be all good.............................................
LOL! Wish I could help you there!!!!
Don't know of anyone making a true complete titanium barrel! One is machine ability! Most guns that are made out of titanium the barrel is steel some form of s.s. or c.m. steel. There is a liner inside the titanium.
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
I have noticed this personally with my Bartlein barrel. I was surprised when I would shoot a sighter in preparation for a competition. It was be dead on out to 300 yards on the first shot. That is to confirm, I had a minor bit of CLP in the barrel and the barrel was stone cold. The barrel shoots amazing and I rarely need to put down much of a copper bearing surface to get full accuracy like I did with the Remington 5R barrel in my 700P.
I don't really see what purpose a Ti barrel would serve, I know that a lot of folks have a chubby for anything Ti but really Ti shines in fatigue situations.
From above, fatigue isn't a concern
High sustained temps (over 600F) isn't a concern (think SR71 skin structure)
Ti is appx 54% as stiff and strong and 60% the density of 416R so for a given volume of material it's weaker and softer structurally.
End Loaded Cantilever Beams
If you subject both to identical contours, identical loading, and identical length (otherwise this would not be an apples to apples comparison) then your deflection is solely based on the ratio of the Young's Modulus (aka stiffness modulus) of the materials. So, the deflection of the Ti barrel is 1/54 or 185% of the Steel for the same contour.
Now, since the density is appx 60%, the performance works out to 90% of the specific stiffness (stiffness to weight) ratio that SS provides. That's just to match the stiffness, the next question is the strength and strength does not increase as a 4th order function like stiffness does, it increases in a squared term due to cross sectional area, and since 1 direction is length (unchanging) then it's a linear increase. So, we need another 66% more material to match the strength, which will give an increase overall in stiffness, but a ~12% hit in weight. Same static strength, ~12% heavier.
I am not seeing the benefit of going Ti in a rifle barrel in terms of performance and we haven't even touched the cost issue.
From above, fatigue isn't a concern
High sustained temps (over 600F) isn't a concern (think SR71 skin structure)
Ti is appx 54% as stiff and strong and 60% the density of 416R so for a given volume of material it's weaker and softer structurally.
End Loaded Cantilever Beams
If you subject both to identical contours, identical loading, and identical length (otherwise this would not be an apples to apples comparison) then your deflection is solely based on the ratio of the Young's Modulus (aka stiffness modulus) of the materials. So, the deflection of the Ti barrel is 1/54 or 185% of the Steel for the same contour.
Now, since the density is appx 60%, the performance works out to 90% of the specific stiffness (stiffness to weight) ratio that SS provides. That's just to match the stiffness, the next question is the strength and strength does not increase as a 4th order function like stiffness does, it increases in a squared term due to cross sectional area, and since 1 direction is length (unchanging) then it's a linear increase. So, we need another 66% more material to match the strength, which will give an increase overall in stiffness, but a ~12% hit in weight. Same static strength, ~12% heavier.
I am not seeing the benefit of going Ti in a rifle barrel in terms of performance and we haven't even touched the cost issue.
bohem:
It was total sarcasm in my post above about Titanium barrels = have a beer & relax my man!!
It was total sarcasm in my post above about Titanium barrels = have a beer & relax my man!!
D'Oh!!
Holy shit. What he said.
I just ordered a 700 Milspec 5R Stainless. I thought stainless was better, but I guess not. Did I just pay $500 for a basic HS Precision stock, or is this rifle with a stainless action/barrel any better than a regular SPS 700?
I have read that these rifles started out as rejected M24's, but due to the popularity, Remington started making them on the same tools as the actual M24.
I have read that these rifles started out as rejected M24's, but due to the popularity, Remington started making them on the same tools as the actual M24.
I buy cm actions for two reasons. First I think they are smoother to operate. Stainless is stickier than cm by far. Another reason I like cm is because I once stuck a as barrel in a as action. What a disaster. Stainless has its place but not on a rifle. That's my opinion anyway. Lee
I've never seen a post to the effect that "I shouldn't have bought the 5R". There are many posts which document the desirability of this model. Mine shoots .25-.35" groups with standard hand loads. Appearance-wise I prefer blued steel but that's my only negative.
Allegedly they started as a way to use M24 barrel blanks that didn't quite meet the QC for that model. They were incorporated into a production rifle and eventually Rem added it as a specific model. I don't think current 5Rs are rejected M24s in any way. Additionally, Rem appears to put more into the action itself on the 5R - can't recall the specifics.
I didn't say that I regret the Milspec. Just asking a question.
Rem appears to put more into the action itself on the 5R - can't recall the specifics.
i bet they dont. i dont know this to be fact, but from what i have seen myself, i sure cant tell it. lee
i bet they dont. i dont know this to be fact, but from what i have seen myself, i sure cant tell it. lee
Please read wtf you just posted.
WTF???????????
Thanks for all the info guys. Can't say I understand some of the more scientific data, or that it will actually effect my personal shooting. And Frank, I'm in the market for a barrel right now and if you need someone to perform "an independent field study" you can just send one on down to me. I'll even pay the postage. I'm sure y'all won't need a dirty old barrel back, so I'll just do you a solid and keep it.
I'm sure y'all won't need a dirty old barrel back, so I'll just do you a solid and keep it. The S.S. barrel on a S.S. action will gall easier. You have to use some type of anit-sieze compound on the threads when installing. You also have to be really careful when test fitting/checking thread fit on the barrel to the receiver even when you are not tightening the barrel up. It happens more than you think.
Another reason why I prefer c.m. actions over s.s.
Later, Frank
Bartlein Barrels
Frank, I want to make sure I'm reading what you posted in your second post correct. If you nitride a CM barrel it will have a lower chance of rust forming while a SS barrel will increase? If so why is that? I'm thinking of nitriding my SS rock barrel when I nitride my action but won't if it could cause an issue in the future.
