Why use a carbon wrapped barel?

[CBH Australia]

Fast forward in the thread. He got "banned". Lol

I was having a quick read, he was pretty , uh vocal as such

 

[Rick Richard]

Years ago I hunted in Wranglers and killed elk and deer with a model 94 30/30. I now hunt and have killed elk and various big game wearing Kuiu and Stika with a custom carbon fiber 300 Win Mag. Why? because I can.

I could not have said it better, which is why I have CF and steel barrels. Not because of weight savings or cooling abilities, but because that is what I wanted at the time. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Send it 284]

I completely understand your point. Mram10us asked "how is yours lighter?" Your 22" barrel is lighter and stiffer and supports your suppressor because it's a different profile. I get it. You specifically asked "what's all the rage"? The rage is weight reduction in longer heavier profile hunting barrels. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing with you or your post. This has to be one of the most argumentative and defensive threads I've read.

Hey its all good brother
Not trying to argue with you
Just clarifying my original view, it seems a lot people took this as a CF bash thread and got their hackles up

 

[1894C]

#5 krieger fluted is plenty light enough for me. Carbon fiber looks really cool but has no application for my needs.

 

[Rich Coyle]

This thread has turned out to be quite entertaining.

from just a normal old person with absolutely no background to offer any dog in the fight:

this is what it sounds like -

on one side of the argument, the guys that believe carbon fiber barrels cool faster Yell and scream —— that they "just do!!!" No need to show any proof.

then on the flip side The guys that believe all steel barrels cool faster say "they just do and I don't have time to prove it"


from a simple minded fella, it sure sounds like everybody just has their own opinion - and that's how it falls.

god bless America!

From your post one can say one group is using ignorant prejudice and the other is using ignorant prejudice. I'm for that. I love ignorant prejudice. It is its on defense!

 

[tacomHQ]

OK had a look at your site and would like to ask why this barrel should work when a fluted barrel purportedly will not work for bench rest per Randy Tidwell who does a lot of that thing? You are using the same 416R as everybody else, right? Yours is 'internally' fluted from what I can see.

I guess in rough terms you can say it is internally fluted.
Fluting reduces "strength" as it creates a smaller minor diameter. You can argue that the side walls of the flute can increase rigidity and they will at some value. If you are talking minor cords "no". The minor cord value of a flute also only adds minimal surface area. I can provide the math samples for that if requested.
At some point if you have a vertical wall in a flute the potential to add strength could be present. However the minor diameter has been drastically reduced. The "twisting moment (failure) becomes much more severe.
Our barrels can be looked at in two manners from a simple structure standpoint.
1) It is a series of "I" beams wrapped around the bore. Remember our barrels are one piece devices and have no interface "joints". These "I" beams are contained within their own tube.
2) It is a series of "tubes". As one tube is stressed one side is compressed and one side is tensioned. The tube on the opposite side of the barrel will be stressed at a 180deg phase: tensioned and compressed.
3) We carry a much larger OD on average. As we all know a tube of equal weight to a solid bar is at least 30% stronger.
The common thread of question on the forums "why aren't they being used?".
Barrel guys have asked the same question even noting when asked " its snake oil".
However using the "flatlander" as a comparison: all steel should be round rods. No other shape should exists.
Also- every barrel manufacturer started somewhere and at an early point the same question could be asked.
We are not "making " the barrel. Bartlein, Kreiger, Brux, Benchmark, Lija all make the barrels. We enhance the form. Our approach is different than any other barrel previous- which makes it questionable. When we challenge someone to a "shooting contest" it is out of confidence and to learn- maybe a bit of bravado too. If our barrel does not outperform the other barrel in every measure it will be a "why?".
A quote from a top F1 team "from what we have just experienced this afternoon give it two or three years if you are not shooting this type of barrel you won't be in the top". Big words for us to live up to.
However using cars as an example; if I could give you and instant 10% gain in any major aspect .. HP, torque, suspension, road holding (all components) what would you pay? At what level of competition is it worth the dollar investment?
If we can double your competitive shot string?
If we can reduce your 1000yd average group size by 10%?
If your SD and ES values drop by 10%? This is not only documented
Life of barrel increases?
A gain in range flexibility - reduced left right throw- on any given day and situation?
Reduced load work up?
There are a lot of "one hole barrels/guns". How do you improve on one hole. By addressing all of the other criteria that describes how to put a round on target and making it useable and repeatable.

Thank all of you for asking a few questions. Most of you did not know we existed. As noted "starting somewhere" is a good thing.
Take a look at our YouTube : 90% are from third party testimony. I can say that we fall outside - in a good way- what is expected from a barrel.

NOTE: we did not make these barrels for todays rounds. This is step one. Our next generation will be a much larger leap forward. They just happen to perform with todays rounds very well.

 

[josip89]

I hope in the future You ,or somebody else ,will have tool to make even better barrels and even lighter and thiner.

Yours barrels are next level.
But I hope there will be something to put on the hunting rig also.

 

[tacomHQ]

I hope in the future You ,or somebody else ,will have tool to make even better barrels and even lighter and thiner.

Yours barrels are next level.
But I hope there will be something to put on the hunting rig also.

We are well into the 6lb range on a 27" x 1.25dia barrel- the expected finish weight is 6.22lbs after chambering and brake. (Current Customer)
This barrel will drop by .4lbs per inch:
26" 5.8
24" 5.0
22" 4.2lbs
We need to do some more modeling to determine what the "values" will be as we remove material from specific areas. At some point we will be trading attributes at a 1:1 scale. It will be "what scale" is important to whom.

Yes- the next generation barrels we will produce addresses weight, greater cooling and increased 3D and directional stiffness.

 

[rustyshackleford]

I've read that site and also skimmed the accompanying 160+ page study. Additives to epoxy are not that expensive. Good amounts of graphite to mix with epoxy helps and that is about $50.

What is Critical Thickness of Insulation - Critical Radius - Definition

Critical Thickness of Insulation - Critical Radius. The thickness upto which heat flow increases and after which heat flow decreases is termed as critical thickness. In the case of cylinders and spheres it is called critical radius. Thermal Engineering

www.thermal-engineering.org

So that article will get your mind in the right frame to visualize how it takes place and the relationship at play. The problem like others have said is you need exact values for your thermal conductivity to get exact answers. You can look at this though see how much insulation you'd need to cool the steel faster, assuming that CF has lower thermal conductivity than steel.

 

[longestrange]

I guess in rough terms you can say it is internally fluted.
Fluting reduces "strength" as it creates a smaller minor diameter. You can argue that the side walls of the flute can increase rigidity and they will at some value. If you are talking minor cords "no". The minor cord value of a flute also only adds minimal surface area. I can provide the math samples for that if requested.
At some point if you have a vertical wall in a flute the potential to add strength could be present. However the minor diameter has been drastically reduced. The "twisting moment (failure) becomes much more severe.
Our barrels can be looked at in two manners from a simple structure standpoint.
1) It is a series of "I" beams wrapped around the bore. Remember our barrels are one piece devices and have no interface "joints". These "I" beams are contained within their own tube.
2) It is a series of "tubes". As one tube is stressed one side is compressed and one side is tensioned. The tube on the opposite side of the barrel will be stressed at a 180deg phase: tensioned and compressed.
3) We carry a much larger OD on average. As we all know a tube of equal weight to a solid bar is at least 30% stronger.
The common thread of question on the forums "why aren't they being used?".
Barrel guys have asked the same question even noting when asked " its snake oil".
However using the "flatlander" as a comparison: all steel should be round rods. No other shape should exists.
Also- every barrel manufacturer started somewhere and at an early point the same question could be asked.
We are not "making " the barrel. Bartlein, Kreiger, Brux, Benchmark, Lija all make the barrels. We enhance the form. Our approach is different than any other barrel previous- which makes it questionable. When we challenge someone to a "shooting contest" it is out of confidence and to learn- maybe a bit of bravado too. If our barrel does not outperform the other barrel in every measure it will be a "why?".
A quote from a top F1 team "from what we have just experienced this afternoon give it two or three years if you are not shooting this type of barrel you won't be in the top". Big words for us to live up to.
However using cars as an example; if I could give you and instant 10% gain in any major aspect .. HP, torque, suspension, road holding (all components) what would you pay? At what level of competition is it worth the dollar investment?
If we can double your competitive shot string?
If we can reduce your 1000yd average group size by 10%?
If your SD and ES values drop by 10%? This is not only documented
Life of barrel increases?
A gain in range flexibility - reduced left right throw- on any given day and situation?
Reduced load work up?
There are a lot of "one hole barrels/guns". How do you improve on one hole. By addressing all of the other criteria that describes how to put a round on target and making it useable and repeatable.

Thank all of you for asking a few questions. Most of you did not know we existed. As noted "starting somewhere" is a good thing.
Take a look at our YouTube : 90% are from third party testimony. I can say that we fall outside - in a good way- what is expected from a barrel.

NOTE: we did not make these barrels for todays rounds. This is step one. Our next generation will be a much larger leap forward. They just happen to perform with todays rounds very well.

Should be interesting to watch how they do in competition, time will tell. Not sure how they would enable better ammo tho.

 

[josip89]

We are well into the 6lb range on a 27" x 1.25dia barrel- the expected finish weight is 6.22lbs after chambering and brake. (Current Customer)
This barrel will drop by .4lbs per inch:
26" 5.8
24" 5.0
22" 4.2lbs
We need to do some more modeling to determine what the "values" will be as we remove material from specific areas. At some point we will be trading attributes at a 1:1 scale. It will be "what scale" is important to whom.

Yes- the next generation barrels we will produce addresses weight, greater cooling and increased 3D and directional stiffness.

I would also recomomended a gain twist for Yours barrels.

 

[Rich Coyle]

I would disagree that you can make a fluted barrel the same weight as a cf barrel. The minimum wall thickness is generally .150 per side across the barrel industry. That means the flutes can only go that deep. That is extra steel that is not there when turned down for CF.

The CTE is still interesting to me. It shows CF is lower on the scale, however, the Specific Heat has to come into this too, doesn't it? No expert, but I know the amount of energy needed to heat a pencil barrel v heavy barrel is much less. The CF (with associated resin) have much different Specific Heat than the steel.

Here are some numbers to play with.
CF barrel steel volume = ~10in^3
Steel barrel (Remington Varmint contour) volume= ~20in^3
Obviously, twice the volume of steel to heat and cool without taking into account the CF CTE. Curious what the numbers show for time of heat dissipation....
edit- numbers were off

Here is post #84. It addresses your first sentence.

A couple years ago I did two 6.5 mm rifles. One on the twenty-six ounce six lug Mark V Weatherby action using a 26" heavily fluted .550" muzzle steel barrel. The other was a 26" carbon fiber .850"muzzle barrel on a Pierce titanium action. Both barrels looked really cool to me and both weighed forty ounces. The Weatherby fired groups about 5/8" for three shots and up to 15/16" for five shots. The Pierce fired 1 1/2" for three shots on a good day. The Weatherby had a wildcat that matched a .264 Win Mag without the belt. Velocity with Hammer Shockhammer 130 averaged 3,190 feet per second. The Pierce used a .338 RUM chamber but .300 RUM brass to get a .100" longer neck. While I was at it I did a Lilja 28" 9 twist barrel on my son-in-law's Savage. It fired Nosler 140 Accubonds at 3,419 feet per second and did five shots around 3/4". By the way, Son John took one of my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50's for his Savage. Now I have only two. The other is on the .375 wildcat.

For reference the Weatherby had a Swarovski z5 5-25X52. The Pierce had a Leupold VX-6 4-24X52. The Swarovski went back for service twice in about eighteen months. The Leupold never gave any trouble. The Pierce rifle was disassembled and parts sold; including the scope. The Swarovski was sold with full disclosure about its history and replaced with a Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50.

 

[Mram10us]

Here is post #84. It addresses your first sentence.

A couple years ago I did two 6.5 mm rifles. One on the twenty-six ounce six lug Mark V Weatherby action using a 26" heavily fluted .550" muzzle steel barrel. The other was a 26" carbon fiber .850"muzzle barrel on a Pierce titanium action. Both barrels looked really cool to me and both weighed forty ounces. The Weatherby fired groups about 5/8" for three shots and up to 15/16" for five shots. The Pierce fired 1 1/2" for three shots on a good day. The Weatherby had a wildcat that matched a .264 Win Mag without the belt. Velocity with Hammer Shockhammer 130 averaged 3,190 feet per second. The Pierce used a .338 RUM chamber but .300 RUM brass to get a .100" longer neck. While I was at it I did a Lilja 28" 9 twist barrel on my son-in-law's Savage. It fired Nosler 140 Accubonds at 3,419 feet per second and did five shots around 3/4". By the way, Son John took one of my Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50's for his Savage. Now I have only two. The other is on the .375 wildcat.

For reference the Weatherby had a Swarovski z5 5-25X52. The Pierce had a Leupold VX-6 4-24X52. The Swarovski went back for service twice in about eighteen months. The Leupold never gave any trouble. The Pierce rifle was disassembled and parts sold; including the scope. The Swarovski was sold with full disclosure about its history and replaced with a Bushnell 6500 4 1/2-30X50.

If you turn a barrel to the minimum for cf, it is a minimum diameter for the length. If you flute a barrel, you can only do the flutes down to the minimum (.300" total) and still have all the extra steel. How can they weigh the same?

 

[cboom]

If you turn a barrel to the minimum for cf, it is a minimum diameter for the length. If you flute a barrel, you can only do the flutes down to the minimum (.300" total) and still have all the extra steel. How can they weigh the same?

If I read his post correctly he had a much bigger diameter on his carbon barrel. So it makes sense to me that they could have weighed he same. So he was comparing apples to oranges.