What are your thoughts on this technique?

[Edd]

......... But I think when he was talking about a throat being off center by xxx thousandths he was meaning to say ten thousandths.

I don't think he was talking about an off center throat. I think he was talking about a crooked/angled throat (the length of one side of the throat compared to the length of the other side) and thousandths was what he meant.

 

[Opa-lopa]

I agree with his assertion that the bore centerline is like a jump rope, that's common. I take issue w/ the magnitude of the max bore deviation, I think it's more like 0.005", not 0.015", at least for well made barrels. From what I know about machining processes, I think it's impossible to add separate components (e.g. barrel, separate chamber, etc) and keep the centerlines perfectly straight.. so I'd label this idea baloney.

 

[ntsqd]

There's a mostly liberal leaning bumper sticker out there that says "Be careful of what you think." This is a case of where following a logic trail lead someone down a bad path. The basic premise adds more variables into the chambered barrel than it removes. I do not see that as a good idea.

I can see where a barrel could easily be made not straight. I suspect that a barrel with a not straight bore is a heck of a lot easier to make than one with a straight bore. Why would you chamber or even accept a barrel with a bore that wasn't straight? The magnitude of error that he's talking about should be visible to the naked eye. Well, a young person's naked eye, probably not mine...

 

[Flintlock shooter]

I'm not sure this guy really understands how well barrels are made today, or that they go thru a QC process before being shipped out.

 

[Terry Balding]

Starting from a false premise.

 

[cohunt]

maybe i misunderstand, but wouldn't you want your chamber to line up with your bore? the bullet comes out of the chamber into the bore, if your chamber was not in alignment with your bore wouldn't you then impart some sort of extra distortional side force to your bullet? also seems like he would now have more issues of machining/tolerance stacking

I can see the added benefit of having multiple length barrels for the same chamber, or different chambers for the same bore--- but wouldn't you still have to build separate loads for each length of barrel due to differences in harmonics and whip?


looks to have been around since at least 2016 http://www.thegunmag.com/patent-pending-chamber-system-offers-new-bolt-gun-technology/ --- make sure you check out the target pic lower in the article with factory ammo and form your own opinion

 

[Mram10us]

In his defense, there are many techniques guys online call unsafe without any experience. Examples are aluminum muzzle brakes and spot welding recoil lugs to receivers. Neither is unsafe when done correctly yet people squawk "unsafe!".
I'm curious to see more from his design

 

[cohunt]

this pic makes it a little easier to understand

 

[Edd]

I looked at these at the 2018 SHOT Show. The workmanship looks really nice. If they made Wildcat chambers and for actions other than BAT, I would buy one.

 

[BallisticsGuy]

Anyone else see this running afoul of NFA rules? As soon as you pull a barrel off of the chamber section and leave the chamber section in the gun or return it to the gun, you've most definitely manufactured an SBR. The rest of it just strikes me as idiotic in the extreme for 1 specific reason separate from or at least more specific than some of the others I've see discussed above: When a barrel is being set up in a lathe it's a lot easier to detect small amounts of runout my putting the indicator far from the chuck. Can't escape trigonometry. By making the chamber section as a short component they reduce their own ability to even detect runout in that piece. Don't even get me started on how much the concept elicits the visual of a revolver having a mutant baby with a 17-piece screwdriver.

 

[ntsqd]

It just doubled the number of places where there can be a misalignment. It also introduced a potential leakage path for the hot, high pressure gasses.
No thanks.

 

[cohunt]

Anyone else see this running afoul of NFA rules? As soon as you pull a barrel off of the chamber section and leave the chamber section in the gun or return it to the gun, you've most definitely manufactured an SBR. The rest of it just strikes me as idiotic in the extreme for 1 specific reason separate from or at least more specific than some of the others I've see discussed above: When a barrel is being set up in a lathe it's a lot easier to detect small amounts of runout my putting the indicator far from the chuck. Can't escape trigonometry. By making the chamber section as a short component they reduce their own ability to even detect runout in that piece. Don't even get me started on how much the concept elicits the visual of a revolver having a mutant baby with a 17-piece screwdriver.

never thought of that aspect, but technically you would be correct, if you removed the barrel but left the chamber with the stock still on it, it would be considered an sbr per the ATF rules--not sure it would ever become an issue unless you left the barrel off for shooting at a public area--- BUT man what a fireball!!! would it be safe though? could be a lawsuit waiting to happen, where would the bullet go if there was no barrel to guide it? Lots of things to think about when designing new firearm parts

 

[JMW67]

It is an explanation about why to use a separate chamber and barrel... I am interested in what folks who have reamed some chambers think when they see this, especially considering the number of "hummers" chambered by standard methods.

somebody is always trying to reinvent the wheel once it is round leave it the hell alone no need to recut corners on it

 

[cohunt]

you know at some point, as long as there is still beer and youtube--somebody is gonna shoot one without the barrel attached --I'll patiently wait for the youtube video to come out

something similar to this?