Please, explain your reasons for choosing a carbon wrappedbarrel.

[Mikecr]

Tell you why I won't get a CF wrapped barrel:
I can't have it finished (cambered with my reamers, melonite treated) by MY gun builder. Otherwise, I'd probably have a Proof R on every gun..

 

[Gcan]

I researched carbon wrapped barrels for an AR10 build but for weight savings not for long range. My current 6.5 is over 12lbs with optics and a 22" barrel and my current 308 is over 10lbs with a 20" barrel. My next 6.5 build cuts 2lbs off the barrel alone vs the current barrel.

When looking at barrels I found that there was no real weight to be saved, but I never looked at contours.

Is there stability in these CW barrels vs there same length stainless or chrome moly counterparts? Is there a benefit that I am missing?

I'm curios why you say there is no weight savings. If your research looked a Proof barrels then you are right. IMO they are a marketing trick carbon barrels. Yes they shoot well. They are radially wrapped strand. A single strand matrix. So when you apply a defection force to them you are bending adhesive.

Two years ago Kirby Allen built me a 338AM on a one-off 32" Proof carbon barrel. We were astounded to find the difference in weight between the Proof and the same 32" fluted barrel he uses was just 5 or 6 oz. $800 more for 6oz. Yes I believe the cost is justified, but not for any weight savings.

Unlike Proofs Christensen's are a woven cloth wrapped process. There are both carbon threads running the full length of the barrel and also threads wrapped perpendicular to the bore that lock it all together. This makes their carbon process a structural member.

I have owned several Christensen rifles and also had them wrap barrels back when they did that work. Their barrels are extremely lite. Silly lite. Silly stiff.
After calculating the weights we determined that the actual carbon thickness on a Proof was not much more than a veneer. As the Christensen process was explained to me years ago they remove most of the steel creating almost a tension barrel captured inside a carbon tube. Ive shot enough Christensen's to be able to say that I have never shot one that didn't shoot quality ammo at 1/2" out of the box. Nor have I seen one that would not shoot any ammo you fed it consistently sub moa. The only explanation is they are not subject to harmonics because their carbon is rigid.
Lest you think I'm a shill for Christensen I wouldn't do biz with them on a bet. Im not a fan
Of their people. But their carbon process is a completely different animal than a Proof. And Proof produces barrels. Christensen wraps other people's barrels. Proof has better branding so we think of them as the premier carbon producer but I don't think they are close to a Christensen in rigidity or weight.

My 27" 300UM Christensen with an alum bedding block stock weighs just over 6 lbs w/o scope. In a carbon stock it's probably 5lbs. And their Titanium breaks are amazingly efficient.
If I were building a mountain rifle it would not be a 6.5 anything. It would be a full on beast 30 cal or 338 with a Christensen barrel.

 

[Tulsa Reiner]

I poo pooed the cf barrels until we worked with a couple on customer rifles. Couldn't believe anyone would spend $800 for a rifle barrel, that's just stupid.

I just finished my personal 280ai with a 22" Proof. I already ate the crow a while back.

Every one we have dealt with has had very consistent accuracy and they simply balance better. Makes for a very nice handling rifle.

I was going to call you out for criticizing someone for what they choose to spend on a barrel.......then I finished your post. . Very funny.
I bought a CF barreled rifle in 300 WM, just for the weight savings. But now I have discovered that it never gets hot. Hence you can always handle it. Further, no need to worry about a "cold shot" when out hunting, after sighting in a warm barrel. Another small plus is it doesn't get marred or scratched nearly as easily as a blued steel or nitride finish barrel. It is actually very tough.

 

[RockyMtnMT]

I have experience with one CA rifle and it would not shoot ANYTHING sub 2 moa.

I also know that Kirby and other smiths have done a lot of business re placing CA barrels. The running joke is they are great rifles once you put on a Proof. One Smith I spoke with recently told me he had 30-40 CA barrels in the corner that he would give me.

When I did my own cf build I quizzed some smiths that I respect and none said there was a good alternative to the proof barrel.

 

[Kimber7man]

That's interesting. You say Christensen's are **** and Broz says he hasn't had one that doesn't shoot great.

 

[Deleted member 103481]

Two years ago Kirby Allen built me a 338AM on a one-off 32" Proof carbon barrel. We were astounded to find the difference in weight between the Proof and the same 32" fluted barrel he uses was just 5 or 6 oz. $800 more for 6oz. Yes I believe the cost is justified, but not for any weight savings.

Something must have changed, I have a proof sendero carbon and a Krieger cut to the exact dimensions of the proof but slightly longer and they weight is not even close to 6 ounces, it's over 3 pounds more on the steel barrel.

 

[Deviant]

That's interesting. You say Christensen's are ---- and Broz says he hasn't had one that doesn't shoot great.

I have had several of both and both have shot well.

 

[Gcan]

I have experience with one CA rifle and it would not shoot ANYTHING sub 2 moa.

I also know that Kirby and other smiths have done a lot of business re placing CA barrels. The running joke is they are great rifles once you put on a Proof. One Smith I spoke with recently told me he had 30-40 CA barrels in the corner that he would give me.

When I did my own cf build I quizzed some smiths that I respect and none said there was a good alternative to the proof barrel.

All my experience with Christensen was years ago. Like I said, not a fan of the people whatsoever. Their machine work is Dremel tool quality but their barrels are stiffer than Proofs. They use a lot less steel and a lot more carbon. One time 5 of us bought thumbhole 300um Carbon Ones. (Years ago) every one shot 1/4" ragged holes at 100 and quarter sized at 300.

I had them build a gun for me. It had some problems. I had to send it back twice as i recall but It shot 1/2" all day. I spent several thousand on a helicopter to fly into a remote lake in New Foundland sat waiting for a 600 lb blk bear for two days. Have it all on film. Bear came in. Hes right in the middle of the TV camera. I pull the trigger and nothing happens. I notice the bolt is lifted. So I reach forward and close it and the gun goes off. The bear is gut shot. I never see it again. The case comes out of the chamber in two pieces. When I get back I send the rifle to Dave Tooley who tells me the headspace is .011" over spec.
I sent the video and gun to the Dr. told them to stick the gun. They eventually sent me a replacement worth half of my custom. So I have zero reason to promote them. But this was a conversation about lite carbon barrels and I believe their process is stand alone.

I still have the Chriss 300um replacement. I broke it in and it sits. Thats how much I dislike them. However, Id be a Hypocrite if let my dislike for them make me dishonest about their carbon process.

I've shot a lot of guns in my time and while I have pretty much always found something every one would shoot, I have never seen any other rifle care less about what you fed it.
I wouldn't buy a rifle from them but Id buy an un-chambered barrel before any other carbon stick.

 

[GMHVAC]

I'm just going from what I have heard from a local gunsmith and he had me told me that carbon fiber is not any stiffer than steel in the same thickness which is why they have to make the barrel so much thicker to get it be as stiff as a carbon barrel. Otherwise why wouldn't they make as thin as a sporter barrel if weight was such a concern?

Here's a question. Which is a stiffer barrel? A 3/4" inch carbon barrel or a 3/4 " CF barrel ?

That being said considering that CF barrels all have a carbon liner how can they be more accurate than a carbon barrel? Assuming that the carbon barrel is made with the same care and attention as the CF.

 

[Gcan]

I'm just going from what I have heard from a local gunsmith and he had me told me that carbon fiber is not any stiffer than steel in the same thickness which is why they have to make the barrel so much thicker to get it be as stiff as a carbon barrel. Otherwise why wouldn't they make as thin as a sporter barrel if weight was such a concern?

Here's a question. Which is a stiffer barrel? A 3/4" inch carbon barrel or a 3/4 " CF barrel ?

That being said considering that CF barrels all have a carbon liner how can they be more accurate than a carbon barrel? Assuming that the carbon barrel is made with the same care and attention as the CF.

About every scientist and industry paper on the subject claims carbon fiber is stiffer than steel. There is a reason Formula 1 cars are faster today than 20 years ago. There is a reason they are 50% lighter and 100% stiffer. Carbon fiber. There is a reason all the exotic car makers are building carbon wheels. They are stiffer and lighter than any metal.
I believe As a thing carbon, is stiffer. Where all the controversy comes from is application. An axial wound carbon barrel cannot be stiffer than a cross woven matrix. The axial might be better at taking perpendicular (right angle) pressure. But there is no mechanical way a non-directional axial (bobbin of thread Proof Research) can have better resistance to linear deflection than a true directional cross woven. Take a good look at about every carbon application you can find a picture of on line and what do you see? You see woven mat. Not batting.
So to generalize that "carbon" is not stiffer than steel is not supported by the facts. Additionally I'm not sure its all about stiffness. Look at the termal expansion coefficients between steel and carbon. Something is clearly different. I think harmonics is the key. From my experience carbon does not react to vibration like steel. Hit a carbon barrel and is feels dead. Hit a steel barrel and it rings. Steel reacts to a strike much different than carbon. So people with little or no experience with carbon are the flat earthers of our art.
Just because they don't or won't look at all the facts doesn't mean the earth isn't round.
Now, is the advantage of carbon worth the expense? That is a different subject. A good smith and build a rifle every bit as accurate as any carbon rifle. But you cannot usually have both forgiving cold bore accuracy and a light weight steel rifle.

For my money if you are a mountain hunter a good woven matrix carbon barrel is hard to beat. If you shoot 2000 yards, f class, precision rifle or just because, then steel is the far better alternative.

Carbon is lighter than steel. Perhaps it needs to be a larger OD to get there but that larger OD is as or more stiff and lighter.

 

[Darryle]

Filament single ply carbon wrapped radially and cross woven, like line on a fishing reel is stronger and stiffer than pre-woven material that gives carbon that signature weave pattern. 22yrs in advanced composite structures and rotor systems.

 

[clownbuster]

Is there stability in these CW barrels vs there same length stainless or chrome moly counterparts? Is there a benefit that I am missing?

Depends on what's more important to you. If staying in the gas gun platform and weight reduction is the main motivator, I guess the larger benefit is reducing your total weight carrying load, and you can get there using a Faxon Match series barrel at a lower cost. Accuracy was fair-to-good, but was improved when replaced with my current Proof carbon barrel. And while personally that's exponentially more valuable than the weight savings, lighter in the field is an added benefit nonetheless.

 

[MkJose]

The issue is twisting the steel core and breaking the bond between the CF and steel. That may have already happened on the install. It's very easy to make one go snap crackle pop.

 

[Rhovee]

Here is some deflection testing done on steel and carbon barrels. Results speak for them selves. A steel barrel of the same weight was about the stiffness as carbon. Proof Sendero was almost identical to #4 fluted.