Hardy CF vs Proof CF

[Cody S]

Has anyone heard of any independent testing as to which is stiffer and/or generally produces tighter groups? I've been wanting to try one for quite a while but I want to get the best and I'm not completely sure which one is superior. Both seem to use drastically different techniques for wrapping their barrels.

 

[WeiserBucks]

I haven't used either of them but recently purchased a barreled action with a Hardy barrel. I'm looking forward to seeing how it performs. Looks like nothing but positive results from the guys running proof research.

 

[Lowlight]

I have both,

the Proof barrels have the edge in my opinion.

bit of whp in the Hardy so the accura y is a touch off the Proof

 

[WeiserBucks]

Lowlight , looks like a typo or two in your post. What is your opinion on the Hardy ?

 

[317millhand]

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/08/1...gious-wimbledon-cup-for-second-year-in-a-row/

 

[snarkscarbine]

Call LRI, GAP, PVA, Dave Tooley, Riverman Gunworks, or Alamo Precision rifles if you want an opinion on the pros/cons.

 

[WeiserBucks]

I hate links, don't click em , is my Hardy barrel a dumpster fire or just not up to the standard that Proof has set ?

 

[snarkscarbine]

It should be excellent. If it was installed by a competent gunsmith it should have no problem shooting in the .1-2s. They also show a high degree of consistency between a cold and hot bore.

 

[317millhand]

From what I hear on this site the Hardy barrels are top notch. The link that I just posted is showing that the Wimbeldon cup has been won 2 years in a row with a 1.1 inch proof barrel. So they must not be that bad either. Id love to have a 1.1 inch carbon fiber wrapped barrel for looks alone!!!

 

[blakejw]

Heard a lot of smiths having trouble with Proof being consistent. In Bryan Litz book he got a barrel from them that was shooting 2.5 moa at best. And as snarks mentioned a lot of smiths cannot put any sort of guarantee on proofs accuracy

I'd say if you are gonna shoot it once a year it doesn't matter but that's not most guys on here.

Proofs barrels also aren't nearly as light as Hardy, which would explain the whip to some extent.

 

[KWilson]

Haven't tried a Hardy barrel but the NZ F class champion ran a Hardy stainless barrel and the primary reason they started making barrels was because one of the top guys who made Border barrels in the UK moved to New Zealand, so it was too good an opportunity for Hardy to miss out on his expertise and start up their own barrel line. They're not cut rifled like Krieger or Bartlein and there aren't too many guys writing up reviews of them, but their carbon barrels are proving quite popular with the hunting crowd in Australia and no one is whinging about them not shooting.

 

[kthomas]

I hate links, don't click em , is my Hardy barrel a dumpster fire or just not up to the standard that Proof has set ?

Why don't you shoot it and find out? That will tell you a lot more about your barrel than a comment from any wise ass on the internet...

 

[Lowlight]

The gunsmiths who have a problem are not taking their time to work with them right... Call the guys at Mile High they are doing Proof Barrels every week with no drama. You have to spend a couple of extra minutes indicating them right.

I have 3 Proof Barrels, all shoot sub 1/2 MOA and none wander... if you attempt to heat them up as hot as possible they will give you excessive mirage which will cause you problems but that is not the barrel wandering that excessive mirage in the scope. Big difference. I posted this stuff on my YT channel. In fact my RPR still has the Proof Barrel on it.

Bryan's results are a bit bogus as I believe Cal from PRB did the testing and did some funky, out of the normal stuff, which would not surprise me. Nobody I know agrees with those results and it has been mentioned several times that it is bs in the reporting. They don't always do things correctly.

I found the Hardy to not be as accurate as my Proof Barrels. The Hardy is good, it's on my Tikka Build, and I have shot a Hardy at my range tht was very accurate. (Not my rifle) but for my personal results the Proof Barrels are better. At 100 yards the Hardy is about a 5/8s to 1" shooter, on steel you can mask that pretty easy. My Proof Barrels are more accurate.

 

[lash]

As has already been said, the "Proof" is in the gunsmith. Here, our local smith has spun up quite a few Proof barrels and they are all hammers. I've seen the targets. Other than that, I don't own one.

 

[Mute]

The gunsmiths who have a problem are not taking their time to work with them right... Call the guys at Mile High they are doing Proof Barrels every week with no drama. You have to spend a couple of extra minutes indicating them right.

I have 3 Proof Barrels, all shoot sub 1/2 MOA and none wander... if you attempt to heat them up as hot as possible they will give you excessive mirage which will cause you problems but that is not the barrel wandering that excessive mirage in the scope. Big difference. I posted this stuff on my YT channel. In fact my RPR still has the Proof Barrel on it.

Bryan's results are a bit bogus as I believe Cal from PRB did the testing and did some funky, out of the normal stuff, which would not surprise me. Nobody I know agrees with those results and it has been mentioned several times that it is bs in the reporting. They don't always do things correctly.

I found the Hardy to not be as accurate as my Proof Barrels. The Hardy is good, it's on my Tikka Build, and I have shot a Hardy at my range tht was very accurate. (Not my rifle) but for my personal results the Proof Barrels are better. At 100 yards the Hardy is about a 5/8s to 1" shooter, on steel you can mask that pretty easy. My Proof Barrels are more accurate.

LL, can you tell us what profile you had on that Hardy barrel?

 

[Lowlight]

It was a pre-fit Tikka from them, not sure the profile

If they were asking and I have spoke to the guys who work with Hardy out of TX, I would go a tick thicker on the barrel underneath. The original barrel they came to CO with, which was on a different rifle was excellet. But I believe that was bedded in a stock vs in a chassis like my Tikka is. I think the bedding helps a bit. But that rifle just shot lights out, we had zero issues. Mine is a bit more open in terms of accuracy.

 

[snarkscarbine]

What we've found is that the Hardy barrels do have a little more whip to them like LL said, and that they really like to be bedded. The majority of rifles that have been built on them up to this point have been in composite stocks that are glass bedded, and have shot incredibly well with zero break-in. The profile on the barrel Frank tested for us is basically a Medium/heavy Palma with no taper to 0.935" at the muzzle.

 

[darrenk75b]

By bedded, are you meaning a full-length bed of the channel or just talking about the action?

 

[snarkscarbine]

By bedded, are you meaning a full-length bed of the channel or just talking about the action?

Just the normal action bedding.

 

[Mute]

What we've found is that the Hardy barrels do have a little more whip to them like LL said, and that they really like to be bedded. The majority of rifles that have been built on them up to this point have been in composite stocks that are glass bedded, and have shot incredibly well with zero break-in. The profile on the barrel Frank tested for us is basically a Medium/heavy Palma with no taper to 0.935" at the muzzle.

So probably a little less than idea on an post 2014 AI AX? One of the reasons I was looking into the Hardy barrels because of the lighter weights available compared to Proof.

 

[snarkscarbine]

So probably a little less than idea on an post 2014 AI AX? One of the reasons I was looking into the Hardy barrels because of the lighter weights available compared to Proof.

That action is bonded to the chassis. It should work great.

Based on my discussions with Hardy as well as several different rifle builders what we've concluded is that the flexibility in the barrels may potentially exploit weaknesses is other areas, like the stock/action fit. Skim bedding an action in a chassis should render any potential for this a non-issue. AI rifles should be even tighter than a glass bedded action, so it should work very well.

 

[Mute]

That action is bonded to the chassis. It should work great.

Based on my discussions with Hardy as well as several different rifle builders what we've concluded is that the flexibility in the barrels may potentially exploit weaknesses is other areas, like the stock/action fit. Skim bedding an action in a chassis should render any potential for this a non-issue. AI rifles should be even tighter than a glass bedded action, so it should work very well.

Gotcha.