Gunsmithing what the problem is?
- Thread starter 300sniper
- Start date
Re: what the problem is?
i'm not sure how many rounds are through it. it belongs to a friend and i just sectioned it for him. all i know is that it was a 6.5x55. i'll ask him the round count when i give it to him. there is about 1" of bore with absolutely no rifling
.
i'm not sure how many rounds are through it. it belongs to a friend and i just sectioned it for him. all i know is that it was a 6.5x55. i'll ask him the round count when i give it to him. there is about 1" of bore with absolutely no rifling
Re: what the problem is?
What was the accuracy when removed and did he try a recrown to see it that would fix it? ;p
What was the accuracy when removed and did he try a recrown to see it that would fix it? ;p
Re: what the problem is?
well it looks like about a 1/4 of the barrel is missing, jk, thats a bit of freebore alright
well it looks like about a 1/4 of the barrel is missing, jk, thats a bit of freebore alright
Re: what the problem is?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thorax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lemme guess....
Shilen ? </div></div>
Yea what barrel is it?
And what type of action was it on?
Thanks for postin
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Thorax</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lemme guess....
Shilen ? </div></div>
Yea what barrel is it?
And what type of action was it on?
Thanks for postin
Re: what the problem is?
I don't see any problem beyond customary bore erosion due to extended usage.
IMHO a borescope would have revealed this info without ruining the barrel, which I suspect could have had nearly another whole useful lifetime after a setback.
Greg
I don't see any problem beyond customary bore erosion due to extended usage.
IMHO a borescope would have revealed this info without ruining the barrel, which I suspect could have had nearly another whole useful lifetime after a setback.
Greg
Re: what the problem is?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IMHO a borescope would have revealed this info without ruining the barrel, which I suspect could have had nearly another whole useful lifetime after a setback.
Greg </div></div>
With the work envolved, and the fact that youd still have a barrel with many many rounds down it, why not just fork up the bucks to put a new barrel on. Your looking at that much in labor anyways if you re-use a shot out barrel... if you even can use it because of the contour.
For how important they are, barrels seem to be pretty damn cheap. Hell 300 for a great barrel.... its 140 for a great scope rail, and 150 for great rings... thats as much as a barrel! And making a barrel, cut rifle at least, is no simple chore.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
IMHO a borescope would have revealed this info without ruining the barrel, which I suspect could have had nearly another whole useful lifetime after a setback.
Greg </div></div>
With the work envolved, and the fact that youd still have a barrel with many many rounds down it, why not just fork up the bucks to put a new barrel on. Your looking at that much in labor anyways if you re-use a shot out barrel... if you even can use it because of the contour.
For how important they are, barrels seem to be pretty damn cheap. Hell 300 for a great barrel.... its 140 for a great scope rail, and 150 for great rings... thats as much as a barrel! And making a barrel, cut rifle at least, is no simple chore.
Re: what the problem is?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't see any problem beyond customary bore erosion due to extended usage.
IMHO a borescope would have revealed this info without ruining the barrel, which I suspect could have had nearly another whole useful lifetime after a setback.
Greg </div></div>
sectioning it is what ruined this barrel?
there was about an inch with no rifling what so ever and then a couple inches with just a hint of what used to be rifling. it slowly tapered into the rifling from there. i would bet a bore scope had been down it before it got rebarreled. you could see with the naked eye how bad it was by looking down the chamber end.
sectioning the barrel was just for a conversation piece.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't see any problem beyond customary bore erosion due to extended usage.
IMHO a borescope would have revealed this info without ruining the barrel, which I suspect could have had nearly another whole useful lifetime after a setback.
Greg </div></div>
sectioning it is what ruined this barrel?
there was about an inch with no rifling what so ever and then a couple inches with just a hint of what used to be rifling. it slowly tapered into the rifling from there. i would bet a bore scope had been down it before it got rebarreled. you could see with the naked eye how bad it was by looking down the chamber end.
sectioning the barrel was just for a conversation piece.
Re: what the problem is?
Setting that barrel back would have been ridiculous. 300 did just what he should have in my opinion.
To get back into any bore integrity suitable for a good leade and throat would have put the breeching cuts all the way into the taper of the barrel. That would leave a very small, maybe even unusable shoulder to face against the recoil lug or action. Guessing that 6” or so off of that tube would also leave a very short 6.5 Swede.
After doing many setbacks, I made it a policy to not accept that type job again.
Erosion damage in throats/bores does not stop at a linear border suddenly. It is a graduated territory that dissipates as you get further from the pressure and heat source.
All of my reamers are piloted. My pilot bushings are graduated in 2/10,000” so that I can get a perfect fit with the bore and produce not only a straight chamber but one with an excellent surface finish. Since an already eroded bore actually has the land diameter tapering to a smaller dimension, one has to start with larger bushings and adjust to a smaller one several times during the chambering process to stay regulated properly. And that is after parting off a large chunk of the breech end before any reaming.
In addition to this, and I think this is THE most important reason I will not do any more, the bore is still exhibiting minor surface damage even at the newly cut throat. Just like a highway that starts to get small potholes and cracks for ice and water to penetrate, the less than pristine surface will absolutely degrade and erode much faster than a new bore.
Now indicating in the old barrel correctly is a chore and all new machining is needed on the breech end anyway. Many times this is a large portion of your barrel replacement price. Result will still be a much shorter barrel with a shorter barrel life, reduced performance (velocity) and you can’t even utilize the original downrange dope you developed for that barrel. Compared to the money match ammo and components cost, the barrel is cheap.
In my opinion, that is not a bargain.
I tell my customers that barrels should be looked at like the tires on your car.
They are an expendable. They are subject to wear proportional to how hard you run them and just like your tires, will offer less performance with hard wear. If the rest of your rifle is setup correctly, a new barrel change is seamless. No dope change, no re-tweaking your load 99% of the time (assuming same reamer and barrel specs as before) and minimal down time.
Terry berry be bi bo berry, etc. . . . . . . . .
Setting that barrel back would have been ridiculous. 300 did just what he should have in my opinion.
To get back into any bore integrity suitable for a good leade and throat would have put the breeching cuts all the way into the taper of the barrel. That would leave a very small, maybe even unusable shoulder to face against the recoil lug or action. Guessing that 6” or so off of that tube would also leave a very short 6.5 Swede.
After doing many setbacks, I made it a policy to not accept that type job again.
Erosion damage in throats/bores does not stop at a linear border suddenly. It is a graduated territory that dissipates as you get further from the pressure and heat source.
All of my reamers are piloted. My pilot bushings are graduated in 2/10,000” so that I can get a perfect fit with the bore and produce not only a straight chamber but one with an excellent surface finish. Since an already eroded bore actually has the land diameter tapering to a smaller dimension, one has to start with larger bushings and adjust to a smaller one several times during the chambering process to stay regulated properly. And that is after parting off a large chunk of the breech end before any reaming.
In addition to this, and I think this is THE most important reason I will not do any more, the bore is still exhibiting minor surface damage even at the newly cut throat. Just like a highway that starts to get small potholes and cracks for ice and water to penetrate, the less than pristine surface will absolutely degrade and erode much faster than a new bore.
Now indicating in the old barrel correctly is a chore and all new machining is needed on the breech end anyway. Many times this is a large portion of your barrel replacement price. Result will still be a much shorter barrel with a shorter barrel life, reduced performance (velocity) and you can’t even utilize the original downrange dope you developed for that barrel. Compared to the money match ammo and components cost, the barrel is cheap.
In my opinion, that is not a bargain.
I tell my customers that barrels should be looked at like the tires on your car.
They are an expendable. They are subject to wear proportional to how hard you run them and just like your tires, will offer less performance with hard wear. If the rest of your rifle is setup correctly, a new barrel change is seamless. No dope change, no re-tweaking your load 99% of the time (assuming same reamer and barrel specs as before) and minimal down time.
Terry berry be bi bo berry, etc. . . . . . . . .
Re: what the problem is?
Looks pretty much identical to my shooting partners old 7STW barrel. It was an R700 Sendero that had been rechambered from 7RM.
The funny thing is, that rifle shot really tiny groups, all the way out to 1000 yds. and then one day, just like that, just stopped shooting. No warning. No degradation. Like it fell off a cliff.
It was very apparent that the barrel had been awful for quite some time, but there was no evidence until it started printing like a 12 ga.
John
Looks pretty much identical to my shooting partners old 7STW barrel. It was an R700 Sendero that had been rechambered from 7RM.
The funny thing is, that rifle shot really tiny groups, all the way out to 1000 yds. and then one day, just like that, just stopped shooting. No warning. No degradation. Like it fell off a cliff.
It was very apparent that the barrel had been awful for quite some time, but there was no evidence until it started printing like a 12 ga.
John
Re: what the problem is?
Mea culpa.
Look, Guys; I didn't mean to pee in anyone's cornflakes,
It's very possible, likely even, that I got this one wrong. But my point is, like other suggestions, setting back the barrel is not an unreasoable option, else why do people do it at all, ever?
Absent any data whatsoever about source, loads, accuracy, round count, etc., I find myself forced to make assumptions; and my first one is that a rifle barrel which sees this sort of usage is more likely to be an accurate one. Finding an accurate barrel is not such a chore these days, but rejuvenating a proven accurate barrel is far from unreasonable.
As for costs, someone who can section a barrel can probably shorten and rechamber one about as readily. Probably. How much does the gunsmth charge himself? His Friend?
Yes, a new barrel is not unreasonable. No arguments there.
Here's my butt, please feel free to kick at will.
Greg
Mea culpa.
Look, Guys; I didn't mean to pee in anyone's cornflakes,
It's very possible, likely even, that I got this one wrong. But my point is, like other suggestions, setting back the barrel is not an unreasoable option, else why do people do it at all, ever?
Absent any data whatsoever about source, loads, accuracy, round count, etc., I find myself forced to make assumptions; and my first one is that a rifle barrel which sees this sort of usage is more likely to be an accurate one. Finding an accurate barrel is not such a chore these days, but rejuvenating a proven accurate barrel is far from unreasonable.
As for costs, someone who can section a barrel can probably shorten and rechamber one about as readily. Probably. How much does the gunsmth charge himself? His Friend?
Yes, a new barrel is not unreasonable. No arguments there.
Here's my butt, please feel free to kick at will.
Greg
Re: what the problem is?
At least it still has rifleing...I rebarreled a Sako 243 a few years ago for customer with absolutly no trace of rifleing left in it. it must have shot terriblr for sever thousand rounds before he had a barrel put on it.
At least it still has rifleing...I rebarreled a Sako 243 a few years ago for customer with absolutly no trace of rifleing left in it. it must have shot terriblr for sever thousand rounds before he had a barrel put on it.
Re: what the problem is?
It's my barrel. A True Flite barrel chambered in 6.5x55 on a Tikka 695 action by Mac Tilton.
I shot the Lapua 139gr Scenar exclusively. Mostly behind 43.5gr of RL17 at 2950 fps. At that MV I was at 7.6 mils at 1000 yards. It shot .75 moa 10 shot groups right up until the day I sent it off to be re-barreled.
Last summer at about 2800 rounds it started losing velocity. It took me a few times out to figure out how much I was losing per rounds shot. It worked out to about .1 mil for every 50-100 rounds. It was actually a pretty linear down slope. At our April LR match I was at 9.1 mils at 1K and MV was down to 2600 give or take a little. That was at just over 3600 rounds.
The next day I sent it out for a new barrel.
I'm a cheap bastard and as long as it was grouping well (and I could still beat Vu with it) I saw no reason to spend what little money I make on a new barrel. But when it got to where it was slower than my Swede 96 Mauser I figured it was time for a new one.
The short one is my actual loaded round used the whole time from about 400 rounds on. The other one is the how far it was to the lands (or what's left of them) at 3600 rounds.
It's my barrel. A True Flite barrel chambered in 6.5x55 on a Tikka 695 action by Mac Tilton.
I shot the Lapua 139gr Scenar exclusively. Mostly behind 43.5gr of RL17 at 2950 fps. At that MV I was at 7.6 mils at 1000 yards. It shot .75 moa 10 shot groups right up until the day I sent it off to be re-barreled.
Last summer at about 2800 rounds it started losing velocity. It took me a few times out to figure out how much I was losing per rounds shot. It worked out to about .1 mil for every 50-100 rounds. It was actually a pretty linear down slope. At our April LR match I was at 9.1 mils at 1K and MV was down to 2600 give or take a little. That was at just over 3600 rounds.
The next day I sent it out for a new barrel.
I'm a cheap bastard and as long as it was grouping well (and I could still beat Vu with it) I saw no reason to spend what little money I make on a new barrel. But when it got to where it was slower than my Swede 96 Mauser I figured it was time for a new one.
The short one is my actual loaded round used the whole time from about 400 rounds on. The other one is the how far it was to the lands (or what's left of them) at 3600 rounds.
