Fluted Bartlein vs Proof Research sendero contours

[Deleted member 103481]

I chamber them all the time. But have never personally owned one. I have worked with them at the range. I do not think Proof would deny this if you got the right guy on the phone. They are meant to be light, and stiff for their weight, and they are. Just research carbon fiber in epoxy and its thermal conductivity properties. Heres a link, its the first that came up, its never a good idea to blindly listen to anything you read on forums. http://www.christinedemerchant.com/carbon_characteristics_heat_conductivity.html
I think they look cool, if a guy likes how they look and wants to use one theres nothing wrong with that.

Aside from cooling, do you think they can shoot with a bartlein?

 

[Alex Wheeler]

Proof makes a good barrel. They are cut rifled in house with very good equipment. Im not a Bartlien fan, but I would not put a carbon wrapped barrel up against a non carbon wrapped barrel of equal quality. You dont see them in any competitions where top accuracy is needed like Benchrest or F-class. Proof's steel barrels are very good (before they turn them down and wrap them) I just chambered one for a 1k BR rifle and will get reports soon on how it compares to the Kriegers that tend to dominate that sport. I am not in any way saying proof's carbon barrels are not accurate, but they do give up a little edge to a solid steel barrel when it comes to pure accuracy IMO.

 

[sable tireur]

You dont see them in any competitions where top accuracy is needed like Benchrest or F-class.

And part of this is readily explained.

Point blank benchrest is already satisfied with short stubby stainless steel barrel which makes the weight classes as required and they shoot zeros, ones and twos. No need for carbon fiber barrels since lighter rifles are not demanded. If demand does increase then this will obviously become an option.

Long range benchrest and F-Class would be underserved by the carbon fiber barrels because of the length limitations from those barrel makers. You don't find 30", 31", 32" 33" F-Class-type barrels available from Proof or the other makers. Besides, those two types of competitions are already using truck axles and still making weight.

Where the carbon fiber barrels do shine is with PRS (gas gun and bolt) and the various forms of 3-gun competitions using AR platforms. But 'top accuracy', your words, is not required for these matches. While accuracy is necessary, it is not to the degree required by the benchrest folks.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

And part of this is readily explained.

Point blank benchrest is already satisfied with short stubby stainless steel barrel which makes the weight classes as required and they shoot zeros, ones and twos. No need for carbon fiber barrels since lighter rifles are not demanded. If demand does increase then this will obviously become an option.

Long range benchrest and F-Class would be underserved by the carbon fiber barrels because of the length limitations from those barrel makers. You don't find 30", 31", 32" 33" F-Class-type barrels available from Proof or the other makers. Besides, those two types of competitions are already using truck axles and still making weight.

Where the carbon fiber barrels do shine is with PRS (gas gun and bolt) and the various forms of 3-gun competitions using AR platforms. But 'top accuracy', your words, is not required for these matches. While accuracy is necessary, it is not to the degree required by the benchrest folks.

I have to disagree with most of that.

Point blank 10.5lb rifles suck to build, you are literally counting oz.s. If a carbon barrel could compete they would be on EVERY 6ppc built. It would give us so many more options for stocks and scopes. Guys are lined up for over a year waiting for $2000 carbon fiber stocks to save weight.

F-open rifles do not balance as well as they could with those long barrels, again if they would shoot up to par you would see them used. Especially in F-tr with the 18lb limit that includes your bi-pod.

In long range Benchrest the standard barrel is a 28" heavy varmint. I build a lot of these. This is the place that we would need the weight savings the least. But would take it for better balance.

If they would shoot with a top barrel they would be a game changer in short range BR and F-TR.

 

[CTK]

I am going to have someone build a similar rifle for me this year. I love the look of the Proof barrels but not sold that they will provide extreme accuracy. I have heard great things about Alex Wheeler's builds. I personally can vouch for Jon Beanland's builds. I hunted a rifle this morning Jon built for me. It is a 6.5x47 with a 23" 2B contour Bartlein barrel. I am a very average skilled shooter. I can keep 3 shot groups with this 7lb rifle averaging under .25" at 100y.

 

[sable tireur]

I have to disagree with most of that.

Point blank 10.5lb rifles suck to build, you are literally counting oz.s. If a carbon barrel could compete they would be on EVERY 6ppc built. It would give us so many more options for stocks and scopes. Guys are lined up for over a year waiting for $2000 carbon fiber stocks to save weight.

I don't expect everyone to agree with everything. Disagreement builds good discussions.

But the area of point blank, with virtually everyone shooting the 6PPC cartridge, the rifles have become a form of cookie cutter design where the variations lack necessity because records are still being set and broken with the same equipment and weight. Yes, the components still have to be selected and assembled with care to maintain weight and accuracy but since the format and equipment are still competitive, the drive to lose weight is lessened. It then becomes similar to what the rules have created for NASCAR, everyone drive the same car with same carburation and weight so that it becomes a battle between drivers. This is a battle of who reads the conditions the best while driving the rifle consistently.

F-open rifles do not balance as well as they could with those long barrels, again if they would shoot up to par you would see them used. Especially in F-tr with the 18lb limit that includes your bi-pod.

I thought about F/TR as I was writing since it could be the portion which would benefit the most from a shift in component weight. Certainly you don't want to have a 32" barrel hanging off the end of a stock supported by a bipod. But you're not using cartridges (.223 or .308) which require that barrel length either. Both cartridges can achieve optimum performance from shorter barrels. I see most of the design constraints in F-Class as an evolution of the sport. Demand for new design aspects of components will drive the ingenuity to design new parts. We've already seen what happens when the shooters put pressure on the bullet makers to create sleeker, high BC bullets and we are all the winners.

But for F-Open, I see the creation of the stocks with longer forearms to allow for better balance of those longer barrels not the push for lighter barrels. This is being demonstrated by at least two of the major stock makers here in the U.S. Balance will always be the facet of shooting we struggle with.

I've worked with Proof Research and their barrels for as long as they've been in business and ABS before them. I've had the pleasure of making some very accurate rifles with their barrels within the limits of their designs. They have not been benchrest accurate. But many of us who bring products to market, identify the niche we want to pursue and one of those identifications is the potential for a broader market which I believe is what interests Proof not just the folks who shoot tiny little groups.

 

[Alex Wheeler]

As I said from the beginning, they fill a niche. They are light for their size and rigid for their weight. While they are accurate, they imo do not match a steel barrel for raw accuracy.

 

[excaliber]

I like the Bartlein #3 contour and that's what I have on my semi custom 300 Win Mag. The gun Rem 700 trued action with # 3 unfluted Bartlein 5R 26"barrel and HS Precision stock with a Leupold VX-3 4.5x14x40 and sling weighs 9 3/4 lbs.

I asked Bartlein about fluting the barrel and they said it would only take a couple ounces off the barrel and it's merely for looks.

The #3 barrel does heat up and I do not shoot more than 3 shot strings. I have another #3 sitting in the closet for my 6.5 GAP build.

I'd like to lose some weight and add better optics.

Going to a McMillan stock would lose a pound but adding better optics could add close to that pound back on the gun.

It's all a compromise. I wish I could get the gun under 9 lbs total but that would be really hard to do.

 

[CTK]

I like the Bartlein #3 contour and that's what I have on my semi custom 300 Win Mag. The gun Rem 700 trued action with # 3 unfluted Bartlein 5R 26"barrel and HS Precision stock with a Leupold VX-3 4.5x14x40 and sling weighs 9 3/4 lbs.

I asked Bartlein about fluting the barrel and they said it would only take a couple ounces off the barrel and it's merely for looks.

The #3 barrel does heat up and I do not shoot more than 3 shot strings. I have another #3 sitting in the closet for my 6.5 GAP build.

I'd like to lose some weight and add better optics.

Going to a McMillan stock would lose a pound but adding better optics could add close to that pound back on the gun.

It's all a compromise. I wish I could get the gun under 9 lbs total but that would be really hard to do.

I love a 7lb. Carry rifle with a hunting weight scope. Additionally I would actually appreciate what a slightly heavier rifle would bring to my Southeast "bean field" hunting. May do a custom that is close in form to a Rem Sendero. Looking at the McMillan Remington Hunter stock. I am not a big fan of the upright grip "tactical" style stocks. I rarely get the opportunity to shoot prone due to ground vegetation. I appreciate the slightly heavier rifle for long range stability. I am thinking Krieger #5 or Bartlein 3b contours.

 

[muleystalker]

I like the Bartlein #3 contour and that's what I have on my semi custom 300 Win Mag. The gun Rem 700 trued action with # 3 unfluted Bartlein 5R 26"barrel and HS Precision stock with a Leupold VX-3 4.5x14x40 and sling weighs 9 3/4 lbs.

I asked Bartlein about fluting the barrel and they said it would only take a couple ounces off the barrel and it's merely for looks.

The #3 barrel does heat up and I do not shoot more than 3 shot strings. I have another #3 sitting in the closet for my 6.5 GAP build.

I'd like to lose some weight and add better optics.

Going to a McMillan stock would lose a pound but adding better optics could add close to that pound back on the gun.

It's all a compromise. I wish I could get the gun under 9 lbs total but that would be really hard to do.

Buy using a March scope you can save quite alit of weight over say a NF NXS or ATACR. I use the Bartlett 3b myself, and this next build I bought a 3b fluted. I really like this contour for LRH on my 28 Nosler and 6.5 Creedmoor. Im doing another 28 Nosler and a 6.5 SS or 6.5 SAUM with the Fluted 3b's. i have been looking at Carbon barrels but am not convinced Im really gaining anything. I need to weigh my flutter 3b and then a Proof barrel and see how much difference there is.

 

[Pdvdh]

Here's a couple no-brainer methods to determine if a carbon fiber wrapped barrel sheds heat of fire better than a steel barrel.
1) Ask the CF barrel manufacturer to provide the thermal conductivity of their carbon fiber product, exactly as layered over and fastened to the steel barrel core. If they're unable to provide that number, ask them how they can know that their carbon fiber wrap conducts heat at a higher/improved rate than steel. After you've tired of watching and listening to them tripping over themselves and stepping in their own doo-doo, use option #2.
2) Talk to CF barrel owners and ask them if their barrels feel cooler or warmer than their steel barrels. After they tell you how the exterior of their CF barrels remain so much cooler than steel barrel rifles, you'll have the answer. BECAUSE... if the CF barrel conducted heat from the bore to the exterior surface of the CF barrel better than a plain steel barrel, the CF surface would be hotter than their steel barrels, not cooler. Simple as simple gets.

The very fact that CF barrel owners report how cool their CB barrels remain after firing a series of shots IS the simple, straightforward evidence that the CF wrap is a poorer conductor of heat, has a lower thermal conductivity than steel, and that the CF wrap is actually insulating the inner steel core and slowing the rate at which the steel core cools down.
The CF barrel manufacturers' claims that their barrels remain cooler and therefore help extend bite life is pure BS.

IF CF barrel manufacturers wanted to document their barrels cool down faster and therefore extend bore life, they could determine the thermal conductivity of their CF bonded wrap, and publish that number. Then we could compare that value directly to the thermal conductivity of steel and we'd all know which material conducted heat better/faster. They don't and they won't because they sell more barrels and make more money lying to prospective purchasers/customers.
If you own a CF barrel and you don't like learning this after the fact, then launch the counterattack as you please.

But when you feel how cool to the touch your CF barrel remains compared to what you expected, remember my post. You might come to your senses, using nothing more than common sense.

 

[FURMAN]

Here's a couple no-brainer methods to determine if a carbon fiber wrapped barrel sheds heat of fire better than a steel barrel.
1) Ask the CF barrel manufacturer to provide the thermal conductivity of their carbon fiber product, exactly as layered over and fastened to the steel barrel core. If they're unable to provide that number, ask them how they can know that their carbon fiber wrap conducts heat at a higher/improved rate than steel. After you've tired of watching and listening to them tripping over themselves and stepping in their own doo-doo, use option #2.
2) Talk to CF barrel owners and ask them if their barrels feel cooler or warmer than their steel barrels. After they tell you how the exterior of their CF barrels remain so much cooler than steel barrel rifles, you'll have the answer. BECAUSE... if the CF barrel conducted heat from the bore to the exterior surface of the CF barrel better than a plain steel barrel, the CF surface would be hotter than their steel barrels, not cooler. Simple as simple gets.

The very fact that CF barrel owners report how cool their CB barrels remain after firing a series of shots IS the simple, straightforward evidence that the CF wrap is a poorer conductor of heat, has a lower thermal conductivity than steel, and that the CF wrap is actually insulating the inner steel core and slowing the rate at which the steel core cools down.
The CF barrel manufacturers' claims that their barrels remain cooler and therefore help extend bite life is pure BS.

IF CF barrel manufacturers wanted to document their barrels cool down faster and therefore extend bore life, they could determine the thermal conductivity of their CF bonded wrap, and publish that number. Then we could compare that value directly to the thermal conductivity of steel and we'd all know which material conduct heat better/faster. They don't and they won't because they sell more barrels and make more money lying to prospective purchasers/customers.
If you own a CF barrel and you don't like learning this after the fact, then launch the counterattack as you please.

But when you feel how cool to the touch your CF barrel remains compared to what you expected, remember my post. You might come to your senses, using nothing more than common sense.

I am not going to argue wether or not carbon fiber barrels are or are not better at transferring heat but I will tell you that you can NOT answer that by feeling the barrel. You can not use touch to rule out the possibility that the resins used transfer heat faster along the grain better therefore moving the heat away from the chamber towards the muzzle you can only prove that it is not moving against the grain and towards the outer diameter of the barrel.

 

[Pdvdh]

You claim the CF sheds the heat primarily at each end of the barrel. Thay's the magic?
Well that's a long distance to conduct the heat, compared to radially across the width of the CF, no? Does that ring of efficiency?

If you believe the heat is transferred extraordinarily efficiently longitudinally, then the ends of the carbon fiber wrap would be extraordinarily, sizzling hot.

And dispersing the heat predominantly at each end of the barrel, a distance of up to 15" on a 30" long barrel, rather than radially thru the thin width if the CF wrap along the entire length of the CF wrap would be like swimming against the tide.
The rate of conductive heat transfer is determined by both the thermal conductivity of the material, and the width/length/distance the heat is conducted thru the material.
Which is why we place 20" in insulation in our attacks instead of 2".
Based on your theory, you then want to touch the steel at each end of the CF wrap for warmth/heat. They should be smoking hot, because the majority of the heat is being shed at each end.
Additionally, planet earth is flat, rather than round.

 

[FURMAN]

Think what you want it makes no different to me. There are plenty of carbon composites(which is what a carbon barrel is) that have much higher thermal conductivity than steel. I am not a barrel maker but would say that the goal was not to make the carbon in the barrel more conductive because that just adds more compressive and tensile stresses as the barrel heats and cools due to the difference in thermal conduciveness of the dissimilar materials. The point was to make it stiffer for the same weight while obviously not loosing accuracy. As to your point about the ends of the barrel being hot regardless of the material every one of my barrels is too hot to keep your hands on after 6-7 rounds so there would be no way, once again, to prove with touch. Bryan Litz has a lot of data on the subject in Volume II of his Modern Advancements in Long Range Shooting series if you want real world data vice internet garbage.