Proof vs Christensen Carbon

Longtooth32 said:
Lucky...:)

Anyways...it looks there is a node around in these barrels around 3125fps. Shot this last night with a Magnetospeed hanging off the end of my barrel. Ave 3124fps, RL26, fireformed, necksized, 140 Nosler RDFs. ES 13 SD 5.1. 101 yrds...might of biffed one...:) shooting out of the back of my pick up...

View attachment 88528
Click to expand...
How many grains of r26? I've never been able to get me 6.5x284 to those speeds.
 
Longtooth32 said:
Remember my gun, my chamber, load at your own risk bla bla bla...:)

I am shooting a long action so I am loading long. I am loading COAL @ 3.12"

That load was 54.9grs of RL26, fire formed and neck sized, mag Russian primer.
Click to expand...
I'm shooting a long action also
3.15 coal, 51.3 gr of 4831sc, fed 210m, 2860 fps.
I might have to give the r26 a try.
Thank you.
 
LongRange325 said:
I'm shooting a long action also
3.15 coal, 51.3 gr of 4831sc, fed 210m, 2860 fps.
I might have to give the r26 a try.
Thank you.
Click to expand...

How long is your barrel? twist? Bullet?

My barrel shoots the 140 Nosler RDF 140's better than the Berger 140 Elite Hunters...not by much though...
 
phorwath said:
MR2005,
I don't want to create a big fuss. I endured a number of Heat Transfer courses in college engineering courses. Heat transfer theory doesn't support your last sentence above. Sometimes I wish I didn't know this ****...

The CF is an insulating shield to radial heat loss. The thin steel barrel will heat up faster than a thicker steel barrel - I agree. However, surrounded by the CF insulation wrap, the steel core of the barrel, thick or thin, will retain heat longer than without the insulating CF wrap.

Now, combine a thin walled steel barrel liner and wrap it with CF, and from a strictly heat transfer perspective, the steel core will experience higher temperatures for two reasons: 1) the thinner contour steel barrel/core temperature will rise at an increased rate per shot fired (because of the lesser mass of steel to distribute the heat across - less steel mass) and, 2) the steel barrel/core will cool at a decreased rate (because of the insulating CF wrap).

If I owned a CF barrel, I would be more concerned with steel barrel temperature than I would with a plain steel barrel. I would practice at reduced rates of fire. The only time I'd be banging away at a rapid rate, is if a wounded animal was getting away.

To my way of thinking, the only reason these thinner steel tubes with CF wrap barrels don't shift point of impact unacceptably through their faster heat ups and slower cool downs, is because the CF wrap is exceptionally stiff/rigid. This exceptional rigidity reduces the tendency of the steel barrel to warp during warm up cycles, such that they seem to shoot well - by most all recent reports I read.

If there's a heat transfer expert in the membership that wants to jump in here and identify the flaw in my post, please do. Open invitation... I don't expect anyone, or any CF wrapped barrel manufacturer's rep, will be able to dispute what I've just presented - at least not applying valid heat transfer science.

I'm not trying to say CR wrapped barrels don't or couldn't have some advantages. The advantages I see are reduced weight, better balance, increased barrel stiffness. I am stating they have no thermal efficiency advantages. They're worse than steel barrels, if we desire barrels that heat slower and cool faster.

For what it's worth. I've never believed the improved thermal performance marketing on any CF barrel. Any more than I've ever believed that some rifles shoot more accurately (better precision) at greater distances than they do at closer distances. It's that clear in my mind. Ain't gonna happen. Not until someone develops a functional miniature guidance system, implants it inside a bullet, and the bullet can self-correct it's flight path after it leaves the muzzle.
Click to expand...
Has anyone thought about changing to equivalent cartridge case volume for less throat heat ? Umm maybe a 6.5/280 A.I. or that ilk ? westtexasordnance.com
 
Reload10 said:
Thanks BigGrizz. Do you ever wish you would have went with a steel barrel? Potential smith has a lot more experience with Brux and Bartlein, and say's they'll accomplish my goals as well.

I'm looking for a lightweight barrel in 26"-28" for my 6.5x284 hunting build.
Click to expand...
Unless you want an intermediate action
6.5/284 Norma, there are other options for greater performance without going to a Magnum case.
 
It is a 6.5 SAUM with backseated headspace, supposedly more efficient than a 6.5 GAP S4 for 140 gr. Hybrid Berger and with more velocity per grain weight powder charge. It retains the 30° shoulder with a slightly longer neck. Please correct me if I am wrong, I have moved from Magnum 6.5's.
 
Michael O'Connor said:
It is a 6.5 SAUM with backseated headspace, supposedly more efficient than a 6.5 GAP S4 for 140 gr. Hybrid Berger and with more velocity per grain weight powder charge. It retains the 30° shoulder with a slightly longer neck. Please correct me if I am wrong, I have moved from Magnum 6.5's.
Click to expand...
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

TC338
Proof vs Christensen
Replies
12
Views
3K
dougduey
dougduey
TC338
Proof research vs Christensen arms carbon fiber barrels
Replies
11
Views
13K
TC338
TC338
S
Christensen arms vs proof
Replies
10
Views
13K
Deviant
Deviant
ducky
Proof vs. Carbon Six
2
Replies
18
Views
24K
ducky
ducky
Rhovee
Proof Carbon VS Steel deflection test.
2 3 4
Replies
42
Views
9K
Tulsa Reiner
Tulsa Reiner

Recent Posts

Top