Butch Lambert
Active member
You are sure correct Al.
Butch
Butch
Last edited:
FWIW- Liquid Nitrogen ( the cryo medium used) has a boiling point of -321' F. Absolute zero is -459' F.
Liquid Helium (used in MRI machines as part of the super-conducting magnet system) has a boiling point of -452 'F.
Liquid Nitrogen is stored in dewars ( like a large thermos bottle), and if one takes the lid off it boils away fairly rapidly.Liquid Helium in a production mode requires an on-site closed loop system, it flashes off immediately if exposed to the atmosphere.
I once saw on Orange County Choppers , Paulie Jr.try to remove a stubborn gear from a shaft on a bike that was to be revealed the next day. After heating with a torch didn't work, someone suggested using Nitrogen to freeze the shaft. Well, all through the night they kept blowing Nitrogen from a gas cylinder onto the shaft to no avail.Here's your sign
Liquid Helium (used in MRI machines as part of the super-conducting magnet system) has a boiling point of -452 'F.
Liquid Nitrogen is stored in dewars ( like a large thermos bottle), and if one takes the lid off it boils away fairly rapidly.Liquid Helium in a production mode requires an on-site closed loop system, it flashes off immediately if exposed to the atmosphere.
I once saw on Orange County Choppers , Paulie Jr.try to remove a stubborn gear from a shaft on a bike that was to be revealed the next day. After heating with a torch didn't work, someone suggested using Nitrogen to freeze the shaft. Well, all through the night they kept blowing Nitrogen from a gas cylinder onto the shaft to no avail.Here's your sign
Last edited:
You're correct. I think it's around minus 472. As an aside...no matter what the arguments are for cryo barrel treatment, there is no argument in my mind as to its advantageous advantage in certain metal applications. When I worked for Motorola, we always sent our precision lithography positioning rails out for cryo treatment which lengthened their usable life by a factor of three. At $35K a pop for these rails, this was a huge annual savings. Just because I saw no advantage when I had my barrel cryo treated does not mean it does not have a positive effect on certain applications.
virg
Butch Lambert
Active member
Virg,
Your company's work was probably done by a company that is capable and has the capability to do it properly.
Butch
Your company's work was probably done by a company that is capable and has the capability to do it properly.
Butch
DR4NRA
New member
Well we have now decided that cryo treatment actually does relieve the stress in a piece of metal and makes it easier to machine. We have also gone and established what absolute zero is. (Damn COLD is what it is.)
Now lets look at the original question. If I had the wherewithal to take a brand new factory rifle and drop another 600 bucks into it right away, I would just go out and buy a custom. I mean look at the economics, 800 bucks or so for the rifle, another 600 for the rebarrel, then add another 200 bucks for pillar bedding and trigger work.
So for about 1600 to 1800 bucks you have a rebarreled factory rifle. That price is right in line with a new 40X, or a tricked out Cooper, add 600 to 800 on that price and get everything that you want in a damn nice custom.
But from the OPs statement that he really doesnt want to drop a dime on it if it doesnt work, I take it hes on a kinda limited budget, which is like alot of us at this point in time.
To me I would rather spend the dime on it and see if it helps, as I have spent more than that on getting my hunting rifles to shoot well.
If it didnt help, MY choice would be to just live with it, and save up about 24 dimes and buy a custom that I dont have to mess with, shoot the barrel out of the thing, and have a good time doing it. Then worry about it.
Just my 2 cents
DR
Now lets look at the original question. If I had the wherewithal to take a brand new factory rifle and drop another 600 bucks into it right away, I would just go out and buy a custom. I mean look at the economics, 800 bucks or so for the rifle, another 600 for the rebarrel, then add another 200 bucks for pillar bedding and trigger work.
So for about 1600 to 1800 bucks you have a rebarreled factory rifle. That price is right in line with a new 40X, or a tricked out Cooper, add 600 to 800 on that price and get everything that you want in a damn nice custom.
But from the OPs statement that he really doesnt want to drop a dime on it if it doesnt work, I take it hes on a kinda limited budget, which is like alot of us at this point in time.
To me I would rather spend the dime on it and see if it helps, as I have spent more than that on getting my hunting rifles to shoot well.
If it didnt help, MY choice would be to just live with it, and save up about 24 dimes and buy a custom that I dont have to mess with, shoot the barrel out of the thing, and have a good time doing it. Then worry about it.
Just my 2 cents
DR
Last edited:
brian roberts
New member
If you really want to look at a website........................
that has lots of info, without the hype, don't fool around with Penguins..........look here:
http://www.metal-wear.com/
At the crystalline level, it refines the structure. It does not make the material harder, or denser. It can, if the heat treatment hasn't been run to spec, change the hardness a point or two in either direction. But what it mainly DOES do, is.....stabilize materials and make them more wear-resistant.
This CAN be of significant interest to those who do extended firing on a slower basis.
Automatic fire can eat up even materials like Stellite if it is sustained.
And yes, look at websites, but look at the processors, if they look like a deep freezer, keep lookin' because all you'll get is a cold treatment, maybe -200 if you're lucky. To begin a cryogenic cycle you must have machinery that will get below -244, and stay there economically, you aren't going to get that with Granny's deep freeze, its impossible. The vacuum-insulated machines have been successfully operated with liquid Helium.
The company whose website I posted will, for gunsmiths, extend the depth of the small and medium machines to 50 inches at no extra charge. That ought to acommodate the .50 cal. barrels.
Just because someone tells you you're paying for "cryogenic processing" doesn't mean that's exactly what you're going to get. As you well know there are ignorant and unscrupulous people out there who take advantage of a lack of knowledge.
that has lots of info, without the hype, don't fool around with Penguins
..........look here:http://www.metal-wear.com/
At the crystalline level, it refines the structure. It does not make the material harder, or denser. It can, if the heat treatment hasn't been run to spec, change the hardness a point or two in either direction. But what it mainly DOES do, is.....stabilize materials and make them more wear-resistant.
This CAN be of significant interest to those who do extended firing on a slower basis.
Automatic fire can eat up even materials like Stellite if it is sustained.
And yes, look at websites, but look at the processors, if they look like a deep freezer, keep lookin' because all you'll get is a cold treatment, maybe -200 if you're lucky. To begin a cryogenic cycle you must have machinery that will get below -244, and stay there economically, you aren't going to get that with Granny's deep freeze, its impossible. The vacuum-insulated machines have been successfully operated with liquid Helium.
The company whose website I posted will, for gunsmiths, extend the depth of the small and medium machines to 50 inches at no extra charge. That ought to acommodate the .50 cal. barrels.
Just because someone tells you you're paying for "cryogenic processing" doesn't mean that's exactly what you're going to get. As you well know there are ignorant and unscrupulous people out there who take advantage of a lack of knowledge.
Last edited:
My understanding is Kreiger is the only barrel maker that has Cryo equipment on site. They got involved ion some type of litigation with 300 below a few years back and can't (or decided not to) use any terminology that refers to the process.
Being able to Cryo at many stages in a barrels transition from raw steel bar to a finished barrel has huge positive ramifications. But it's expensive in both time and equipment.
The machine tool industry has been using Cryo in many aspects for decades. Once the material is cryoed, not only does it wear better, but dimensions are easier to maintain through the machining process.
This said, I think it offers very little improvement when a completely finished barrel is cryoed other than possibly improving the wear characteristics of the metal.. But it might be a positive reinforcement to the shooters psychic.
Being able to Cryo at many stages in a barrels transition from raw steel bar to a finished barrel has huge positive ramifications. But it's expensive in both time and equipment.
The machine tool industry has been using Cryo in many aspects for decades. Once the material is cryoed, not only does it wear better, but dimensions are easier to maintain through the machining process.
This said, I think it offers very little improvement when a completely finished barrel is cryoed other than possibly improving the wear characteristics of the metal.. But it might be a positive reinforcement to the shooters psychic.
brian roberts
New member
No barrel maker has a real cryo machine.................
on site now. Kreiger can give you a COLD TREATMENT, yes. A true cryogenic process? NO. There is no vacuum-insulated machine there, when last I asked.
The fact is, most of the people out there cannot even define what a cryogenic process is, or the difference between a cold or cryogenic treatment (process). Not Smith Enterprise("That's Proprietary") Not Kreiger(the same or a similar answer) When you try to get these people to tell you honestly, what it is, they start getting their dancing shoes on to cover their ignorance. Some even use an outside contractor who tells them they're paying for "cryogenic processing", so that's what we're givin' you, okay?? No, that's probably NOT what you are getting, actually.
And, some shooters expect to be able to shoot the whiskers off a fly at 200, using a barrel that was a .300 shooter before. The fact is, most people don't KNOW whether they were getting a true process before or not. (Just say KNOW!! ) And as far as asking a HOFer if it does any good, how do you know HE got what he paid for, or that he even knows if what he got was a true process?? Like I said, look at a LOT of webpages.
If you want to talk about heat cracking and wear, and it can be an analogy to barrels, look at these photos from an Australian mining truck's brakes. It made me think of barrels right away. http://www.metal-wear.com/Brake%20Wear%20on%20Komatsu.html
As for being expensive in both time and equipment, EHHEENNNNNT! Nope, actually, if there was any REAL interest, barrelmakers could be hooked up to other industries that could use a true cryo process if they were getting the real thing. The cryogenic process IS making progress, as more people are becoming aware that there is an intangible difference, evident only over time, and industry is sloooowwwly waking up, too. Barrelmakers could be running other contract work when they didn't have barrels or barrel steel in the machine. An excellent barrelmaker could increase the price of their barrels by $20-$30, giving the shooters the best barrels around(without the shooter even knowing it, no shouting from the rooftops) and run other contract work, and pay off the machine in 18-24 months, if they gave it some serious thought.
It really isn't necessary to cryo "...at many stages in production...." it depends on what you are doing, and how you are prioritizing your work, and the methodology used. On barrels, for example, the best barrel imagineable would only require a one-time exposure, twice if you thought it would be better. Or, after the Melonite process as the one and only time.
300 below, yeah, Penguin Pete. Always ready to "sue" SOMEbody, because they were usin' HIS process. The fact is that the "Cryogenic Process" has been around for quite some time before Paulin hit the scene. It took a while before curious people started using their brains before they came up with the breakthrough for being able to a) Produce LN economically. b) Transport it while it is still present. c) Design a machine that can use it effectively and efficiently to complete the process, a process that takes time, and that is where the vacuum-insulated Dewar makes the 'real' process work. d) Realizing that CP-ing isn't a get-rich-quick idea, it does take time, and you have to be committed to saving your customer money. Once the customer finds out that the processor(person) has a processor(machine) that is economical to operate, and the processor(person) is interested in his customers producing a better, more economically-priced product for sale to THEIR customers, then the ball begins to roll. This is why barrelmakers are a natural for that kind of endeavor, all they have to get beyond is the "Oh, Hell-We-Ain'-Gonna-Sell-As-Many-Barrels" syndrome. If you make a better quality, longer-lasting, more predictable (stability) quality barrel, people are going to come your way, and quickly. Bartlein is a perfect example, they're what, 8 months behind right now? They could do this in a heartbeat, but most folks are sceptical about what they don't know. If you want the straight skinny on cryo, call Rick Diekman at controlled thermal, he can give you a good basic education in a few minutes, and if you TAKE the TIME to look at his site (above) you can learn a bunch right there that you didn't know, he's no BS.
on site now. Kreiger can give you a COLD TREATMENT, yes. A true cryogenic process? NO. There is no vacuum-insulated machine there, when last I asked.
The fact is, most of the people out there cannot even define what a cryogenic process is, or the difference between a cold or cryogenic treatment (process). Not Smith Enterprise("That's Proprietary") Not Kreiger(the same or a similar answer) When you try to get these people to tell you honestly, what it is, they start getting their dancing shoes on to cover their ignorance. Some even use an outside contractor who tells them they're paying for "cryogenic processing", so that's what we're givin' you, okay?? No, that's probably NOT what you are getting, actually.
And, some shooters expect to be able to shoot the whiskers off a fly at 200, using a barrel that was a .300 shooter before. The fact is, most people don't KNOW whether they were getting a true process before or not.
(Just say KNOW!! ) And as far as asking a HOFer if it does any good, how do you know HE got what he paid for, or that he even knows if what he got was a true process?? Like I said, look at a LOT of webpages.If you want to talk about heat cracking and wear, and it can be an analogy to barrels, look at these photos from an Australian mining truck's brakes. It made me think of barrels right away. http://www.metal-wear.com/Brake%20Wear%20on%20Komatsu.html
As for being expensive in both time and equipment, EHHEENNNNNT! Nope, actually, if there was any REAL interest, barrelmakers could be hooked up to other industries that could use a true cryo process if they were getting the real thing. The cryogenic process IS making progress, as more people are becoming aware that there is an intangible difference, evident only over time, and industry is sloooowwwly waking up, too. Barrelmakers could be running other contract work when they didn't have barrels or barrel steel in the machine. An excellent barrelmaker could increase the price of their barrels by $20-$30, giving the shooters the best barrels around(without the shooter even knowing it, no shouting from the rooftops) and run other contract work, and pay off the machine in 18-24 months, if they gave it some serious thought.
It really isn't necessary to cryo "...at many stages in production...." it depends on what you are doing, and how you are prioritizing your work, and the methodology used. On barrels, for example, the best barrel imagineable would only require a one-time exposure, twice if you thought it would be better. Or, after the Melonite process as the one and only time.
300 below, yeah, Penguin Pete. Always ready to "sue" SOMEbody, because they were usin' HIS process. The fact is that the "Cryogenic Process" has been around for quite some time before Paulin hit the scene. It took a while before curious people started using their brains before they came up with the breakthrough for being able to a) Produce LN economically. b) Transport it while it is still present. c) Design a machine that can use it effectively and efficiently to complete the process, a process that takes time, and that is where the vacuum-insulated Dewar makes the 'real' process work. d) Realizing that CP-ing isn't a get-rich-quick idea, it does take time, and you have to be committed to saving your customer money. Once the customer finds out that the processor(person) has a processor(machine) that is economical to operate, and the processor(person) is interested in his customers producing a better, more economically-priced product for sale to THEIR customers, then the ball begins to roll. This is why barrelmakers are a natural for that kind of endeavor, all they have to get beyond is the "Oh, Hell-We-Ain'-Gonna-Sell-As-Many-Barrels" syndrome. If you make a better quality, longer-lasting, more predictable (stability) quality barrel, people are going to come your way, and quickly. Bartlein is a perfect example, they're what, 8 months behind right now? They could do this in a heartbeat, but most folks are sceptical about what they don't know. If you want the straight skinny on cryo, call Rick Diekman at controlled thermal, he can give you a good basic education in a few minutes, and if you TAKE the TIME to look at his site (above) you can learn a bunch right there that you didn't know, he's no BS.
Boyd Allen
Active member
Some time back Doug Shilen stated flatly that he does not believe that 416R steel can be stress relieved using cryo. As to the improvement that Kreiger gets by processing their blanks, I believe that it is due to making the material more homogenous by converting residual austenite to martensite. One more thing, which seems to be missing from this discussion, completing the conversion of randomly located austinite in a finished barrel has the potential of creating dimensional changes that may negatively impact the accuracy of the treated barrel. While this may be too subtitle to see in a typical factory barrel. I have an extremely credible report of it happening to a hot shooting rail barrel that the owner got talked into having treated, so that it might last longer.
brian roberts
New member
Thanks for weighing in, Boyd.....................
do you have any objective or investigational experience, using the cryo process from different companies??
The reason I ask, is because you said, ".....Shilen stated flatly that he does not BELIEVE that 416r can...." The problem, aside from subjectivity, is that barrel manufacturers make barrels, not shoot them.
It could advance progress exponentially if some experienced, good shooters, would take the time to investigate this area more thoroughly to get some real idea as to what is going on.
I don't include myself in this mix, because I do NOT have the income to do this kind of shooting. I'm a better than average shooter, but I don't consider myself at competitor level. I do shoot cryoed barrels, and my limited experience has shown me a slight increase in accuracy, and an enhanced corrosion resistance which has taken 5, maybe 6 years to arrive at. However, I didn't approach things from a negative perspective, I saw claims from all over the map, and I investigated, talked to people and tried to get an education. I took the time to ask questions, many, M A N Y questions. I discovered things that no one could explain by working with springs from automatic pistols, etc. There are some interesting upcoming things in this area that will probably be surprising......
As far as someone being convinced their barrel shoots worse, we have to ask,
WHO did the work?
WHAT kind of machine was used?
WHAT was the recipe if available?
Why don't you have the railgun shooter get in touch with Rick, he has done things for people who got "bad" processing elsewhere.....it might be worth his while, y'never know,
but it can't HURT anything now, can it??
do you have any objective or investigational experience, using the cryo process from different companies??
The reason I ask, is because you said, ".....Shilen stated flatly that he does not BELIEVE that 416r can...." The problem, aside from subjectivity, is that barrel manufacturers make barrels, not shoot them.
It could advance progress exponentially if some experienced, good shooters, would take the time to investigate this area more thoroughly to get some real idea as to what is going on.
I don't include myself in this mix, because I do NOT have the income to do this kind of shooting. I'm a better than average shooter, but I don't consider myself at competitor level. I do shoot cryoed barrels, and my limited experience has shown me a slight increase in accuracy, and an enhanced corrosion resistance which has taken 5, maybe 6 years to arrive at. However, I didn't approach things from a negative perspective, I saw claims from all over the map, and I investigated, talked to people and tried to get an education. I took the time to ask questions, many, M A N Y questions. I discovered things that no one could explain by working with springs from automatic pistols, etc. There are some interesting upcoming things in this area that will probably be surprising......
As far as someone being convinced their barrel shoots worse, we have to ask,
WHO did the work?
WHAT kind of machine was used?
WHAT was the recipe if available?
Why don't you have the railgun shooter get in touch with Rick, he has done things for people who got "bad" processing elsewhere.....it might be worth his while, y'never know,
but it can't HURT anything now, can it??
Boyd Allen
Active member
Brian,
Years ago, when cryo was first the hot topic in PS, and I was writing for another Benchrest magazine, I believe that I had something to do with helping to convince Kevin Thomas to do a cryo test, using ammunition test barrels at Sierra. He did, and it was published in PS.
I don't approach the subject from a negative perspective. I was just providing information that I thought germane to the discussion. I am well aware of the various uses of cryo in industry.
No, I am not interested in funding a full test. As far as I am aware, no one has, and so we are left with anecdotal information...all of us.
Now about barrel makers, they have more than a passing interest in metallurgy, the quality of the raw stock that they work with, and its heat treat/stress relief. Among those that strive to make barrels of the highest quality, I am sure that anything that would give a definite improvement in their barrels' accuracy would be of great interest. Everyone else, except perhaps cryo equipment manufacturers, is in on the cheap.
If I thought that I had a process that would make Benchrest barrels more accurate, I would pay a couple of big name shooters to do a before and after evaluation, with strict controls, in a tunnel of known quality. BTW I have a copy of an article from Shooters News about sub harmonic frequency vibratory stress relief of rifle barrels. Now that was interesting!
Boyd
Years ago, when cryo was first the hot topic in PS, and I was writing for another Benchrest magazine, I believe that I had something to do with helping to convince Kevin Thomas to do a cryo test, using ammunition test barrels at Sierra. He did, and it was published in PS.
I don't approach the subject from a negative perspective. I was just providing information that I thought germane to the discussion. I am well aware of the various uses of cryo in industry.
No, I am not interested in funding a full test. As far as I am aware, no one has, and so we are left with anecdotal information...all of us.
Now about barrel makers, they have more than a passing interest in metallurgy, the quality of the raw stock that they work with, and its heat treat/stress relief. Among those that strive to make barrels of the highest quality, I am sure that anything that would give a definite improvement in their barrels' accuracy would be of great interest. Everyone else, except perhaps cryo equipment manufacturers, is in on the cheap.
If I thought that I had a process that would make Benchrest barrels more accurate, I would pay a couple of big name shooters to do a before and after evaluation, with strict controls, in a tunnel of known quality. BTW I have a copy of an article from Shooters News about sub harmonic frequency vibratory stress relief of rifle barrels. Now that was interesting!
Boyd
Last edited:
F
f d shuster
Guest
Article by Kevin Thomas appeared in the Sept. 1998 issue of Precision Shooting, titled "Meanwhile 17,224 rounds later". Involved 5 308 barrels some cyro treated and some not, all testing under very controlled conditions. Bottom line, all the barrels were ready for the scrap bin at around 4000 rounds, cyro treated or not. So much for the claim it extends barrel life. From the frequently asked questions section of Armalite's web site: "Does cryogenic treatment of barrels help in any way". Their answer: No. From Shilen's website: "We do not endorse the cryogenic process". From Hart barrels website: "virtually unaffected by cyro-treating". "Crucible's metallurgist have advised us that cyro-treating has no effect on 416R stainless steel". And finally, from my amateur standpoint, I had a Hart 22-250 barrel cyro treated ( Ya, I believed all the hype), and it did nothing. No improvement in accuracy (the barrel was always very accurate), no improvement in cleaning (it was always easy to clean), and it was toast at a documented 2400 rds, the same life I got out of a Shilen stainless also in 22-250, not cyro treated. Accuracy, cleaning & barrel life were all claims being made by one of the cyro treating companies at the time.
brian roberts
New member
Well, let me see if I can clear up some........................
of this negativity. Boyd, if you RE-read your original post, you will see the negativity if you are able to be objective. You continued to use subjectivity with statements like, "...does not believe..."
"....may negatively impact..." "...extremely credible report...." And then you began on the subject of vibratory stress relief. Boyd, we were in a discussion about cryogenic processing. While there may be many interesting articles, please, don't switch to another topic to distract people.
Barrelmakers do have more than a passing interest in metallurgy. No stuff. But, they make many barrels, if they shot enough, as some people do, or to satisfy someone like you as to the adequacy of their testing, they'd be out of business, shortly. They make many, shoot very few. And when they have a barrel that shoots poorly, they make it up, and everyone gives them the benefit of the doubt, and life goes on, right?? You bet'cha.
But in your posts, and Mr, Shuster's, everything was cut and dried, end of conversation, it was condemnatory as well as negatively biased. And, no one displayed any curiosity as to what is now known.
Now, you say you are well aware of the various uses of cryo in industry. So, did it not ever occur to you that, if it has "various uses" in industry, that some of those "various uses" could also carry over into the firearms industry? That there would surely be an application?
And what about Remington? I think, but I'll find out for sure and report back, but they saved something like 1 million in, I believe, two years; but as I said, I'll get confirmation on that. Yeah, they saved somewhere around a Mil., but when they decided to downsize, they dropped the metallurgist's position, then assigned the duties of cryo processing tools, etc. to the maintenance supervisor. Then after about six months, he told them, "I don't think this stuff works." "Okay, they said, we won't do it anymore." Once again, asking and/or getting another's opinion can be very expensive.
But the thing I found most appalling was that no one answered my questions:
Who did the work?
What kind of machine was used?
How long was it held at temperature??
Some processors maintain the time at lowest temperature for only ten hours, and say, thats perfect!! I would never even consider such a brief duration.
As far as the quest for ultimate accuracy, I don't see that here. Because "some guys" didn't get a bolt from the blue, and 12 year-old info is gospel. No need to try, it don't wurk.
No one ever says, "Y'know, I need to find out what's going on in that industry, what's new?"
Now, as far as dimensional changes, thats probably( but 99.998% sure) the result of LN being sprayed in the cargo area, but, don't worry, it evaporates immediately and doesn't touch the payload. Really?? If you are using a converted freezer, thats exactly what will happen. The reason there is no thermal shock with Controlled Thermal is because there is a heat exchanger in the lid. The exchanger acts as a radiator, but it radiates cold. And dipping or spraying on your product?? It doesn't happen, because the LN isn't able to get out of the exchanger to your parts. All this info is on their site.
I got to go now, but I'll be back.
of this negativity. Boyd, if you RE-read your original post, you will see the negativity if you are able to be objective. You continued to use subjectivity with statements like, "...does not believe..."
"....may negatively impact..." "...extremely credible report...." And then you began on the subject of vibratory stress relief. Boyd, we were in a discussion about cryogenic processing. While there may be many interesting articles, please, don't switch to another topic to distract people.
Barrelmakers do have more than a passing interest in metallurgy. No stuff. But, they make many barrels, if they shot enough, as some people do, or to satisfy someone like you as to the adequacy of their testing, they'd be out of business, shortly. They make many, shoot very few. And when they have a barrel that shoots poorly, they make it up, and everyone gives them the benefit of the doubt, and life goes on, right?? You bet'cha.
But in your posts, and Mr, Shuster's, everything was cut and dried, end of conversation, it was condemnatory as well as negatively biased. And, no one displayed any curiosity as to what is now known.
Now, you say you are well aware of the various uses of cryo in industry. So, did it not ever occur to you that, if it has "various uses" in industry, that some of those "various uses" could also carry over into the firearms industry? That there would surely be an application?
And what about Remington? I think, but I'll find out for sure and report back, but they saved something like 1 million in, I believe, two years; but as I said, I'll get confirmation on that. Yeah, they saved somewhere around a Mil., but when they decided to downsize, they dropped the metallurgist's position, then assigned the duties of cryo processing tools, etc. to the maintenance supervisor.
Then after about six months, he told them, "I don't think this stuff works." "Okay, they said, we won't do it anymore." Once again, asking and/or getting another's opinion can be very expensive.But the thing I found most appalling was that no one answered my questions:
Who did the work?
What kind of machine was used?
How long was it held at temperature??
Some processors maintain the time at lowest temperature for only ten hours, and say, thats perfect!! I would never even consider such a brief duration.
As far as the quest for ultimate accuracy, I don't see that here. Because "some guys" didn't get a bolt from the blue, and 12 year-old info is gospel. No need to try, it don't wurk.
No one ever says, "Y'know, I need to find out what's going on in that industry, what's new?"
Now, as far as dimensional changes, thats probably( but 99.998% sure) the result of LN being sprayed in the cargo area, but, don't worry, it evaporates immediately and doesn't touch the payload. Really?? If you are using a converted freezer, thats exactly what will happen. The reason there is no thermal shock with Controlled Thermal is because there is a heat exchanger in the lid. The exchanger acts as a radiator, but it radiates cold. And dipping or spraying on your product?? It doesn't happen, because the LN isn't able to get out of the exchanger to your parts. All this info is on their site.
I got to go now, but I'll be back.
Boyd Allen
Active member
Brian,
After reading your latest post, in which you spent so much time correcting, and criticizing me, I took the time to go back and see who had started this thread that you seem to be intent on taking over and directing. Surprise...it wasn't you. Why don't you just give your opinions on the subject, and let me have mine, since I don't remember asking for your approval, or direction. Also, I find your criticism of my objectivity to be slightly amusing. Reread your own posts. I think they speak for themselves.
After reading your latest post, in which you spent so much time correcting, and criticizing me, I took the time to go back and see who had started this thread that you seem to be intent on taking over and directing. Surprise...it wasn't you. Why don't you just give your opinions on the subject, and let me have mine, since I don't remember asking for your approval, or direction. Also, I find your criticism of my objectivity to be slightly amusing. Reread your own posts. I think they speak for themselves.
brian roberts
New member
You are right, Boyd.................................
I was trying to give folks more information, and perhaps I was a bit heavy-handed in my presentation, I was attempting to deflect the misinformed, back on the path, and for that I apologize. I realize you are the author and as such you are regarded as an authority, so I thought your out-of-the-chute comments were a bit dismissive.
As such, I thought you were perhaps lacking in information as well, since it was dated and from an obviously disappointed position. I did feel I could provide assistance. However, I believed that a published author would be interested in gathering information that would allow one to determine if, perhaps, there was some new positive information out there with which he may be able to provide his audience. While just a varmint shooter, I have been shooting processed barrels for 13 years, and while not in a laboratory, they have shown some very pleasing attributes. My barrels were processed by two different vendors, but I now use only one. The results, even for shooters of factory ammo, have been quite "cheering", in the words of one.
I apologize again, obviously I was mistaken in this regard. I apologize as well to DS2 for taking over the thread, it sincerely was not my original intent.
I was trying to give folks more information, and perhaps I was a bit heavy-handed in my presentation, I was attempting to deflect the misinformed, back on the path, and for that I apologize. I realize you are the author and as such you are regarded as an authority, so I thought your out-of-the-chute comments were a bit dismissive.
As such, I thought you were perhaps lacking in information as well, since it was dated and from an obviously disappointed position. I did feel I could provide assistance. However, I believed that a published author would be interested in gathering information that would allow one to determine if, perhaps, there was some new positive information out there with which he may be able to provide his audience. While just a varmint shooter, I have been shooting processed barrels for 13 years, and while not in a laboratory, they have shown some very pleasing attributes. My barrels were processed by two different vendors, but I now use only one. The results, even for shooters of factory ammo, have been quite "cheering"
, in the words of one.I apologize again, obviously I was mistaken in this regard. I apologize as well to DS2 for taking over the thread, it sincerely was not my original intent.
Boyd Allen
Active member
Bring on the information. We can never have enough. Writing things, does not make one an authority, and that WAS a long time ago. At the time, I was about as deep in the subject as one could reasonably be. I have discussed cryo with barrel makers, shooters, and cryo merchants. While your information about the relative merits of different cryo machine designs is correct, your assumption that I am not aware of the distinctions was unfounded and incorrect.
Shooters at the top of the short range Benchrest game tend to be very attentive when it comes to anything that will make their groups get smaller. I have my ear to that particular patch of ground,, and have not heard of any recent results that would have me running to have a barrel frozen.
I guess that one reason that I take a jaundiced view of barrel treatments is that I have spent a lot of time at the range with shooters of the non-competition benchrest variety. They are a fine bunch of fellows, but they tend to report wallet groups as how their rifles shoot "all day long" and if you try to find one tuning loads at the range. or shooting over flags you may grow old an gray in the process.
One time I remember talking to a fellow that was "testing primers". he was shooting off of a bipod, with no rear bag, on a day with some wind, with no flags, with an unadjusted factory trigger. Like most "primer tests" I doubt that he had considered that since accuracy nodes tend to be velocity specific, that he should have corrected his powder charges for each primer, so that they would all produce a proven velocity. My rather long winded point is that with all of the variables involved, including shooter skill, it is hard to isolate one thing as being causative. Have you read the article about the Sierra test?
The other reason that I am less interested in barrel treatments than other approaches to accuracy enhancement, is that my factory rifles are pretty satisfactory as is, for the purpose that they are intended. My Varmint rifles have shot sub half inch five shot wallet groups, and my larger caliber rifles beat MOA, which is all that is needed. If it ain't broke, I don't fix it.
While I don't claim that these results are typical, I do believe that most factory rifle shooters that are on a budget would make their largest gains by learning how to do a perfect pillar bedding job, and by learning how to do a better job of tuning loads, and by using wind flags.
IMO many factory barrels can be made to shoot satisfyingly small groups, for what they are, but if the work has been correctly done, and they do not, the cheapest way out is to sell the rifle, and try another. By the time that you get to one that you like, you may have become a fair to middling bedder and trigger adjuster, but that is all to the good. Ultimately, is one becomes interested in the pure pursuit of accuracy, the cost of a barrel and chambering job, and any corrective work that the action needs, ends up being an excellent investment. I would rather have a few really good rifles, than five times as many that are mediocre. My advice to the many shooters that I know that have more money tied up in rifles than I do, is to sell as many as it takes to build one really good one. Once you do, the rest will never come out of the safe, unless you are going hunting.
Shooters at the top of the short range Benchrest game tend to be very attentive when it comes to anything that will make their groups get smaller. I have my ear to that particular patch of ground,, and have not heard of any recent results that would have me running to have a barrel frozen.
I guess that one reason that I take a jaundiced view of barrel treatments is that I have spent a lot of time at the range with shooters of the non-competition benchrest variety. They are a fine bunch of fellows, but they tend to report wallet groups as how their rifles shoot "all day long" and if you try to find one tuning loads at the range. or shooting over flags you may grow old an gray in the process.
One time I remember talking to a fellow that was "testing primers". he was shooting off of a bipod, with no rear bag, on a day with some wind, with no flags, with an unadjusted factory trigger. Like most "primer tests" I doubt that he had considered that since accuracy nodes tend to be velocity specific, that he should have corrected his powder charges for each primer, so that they would all produce a proven velocity. My rather long winded point is that with all of the variables involved, including shooter skill, it is hard to isolate one thing as being causative. Have you read the article about the Sierra test?
The other reason that I am less interested in barrel treatments than other approaches to accuracy enhancement, is that my factory rifles are pretty satisfactory as is, for the purpose that they are intended. My Varmint rifles have shot sub half inch five shot wallet groups, and my larger caliber rifles beat MOA, which is all that is needed. If it ain't broke, I don't fix it.
While I don't claim that these results are typical, I do believe that most factory rifle shooters that are on a budget would make their largest gains by learning how to do a perfect pillar bedding job, and by learning how to do a better job of tuning loads, and by using wind flags.
IMO many factory barrels can be made to shoot satisfyingly small groups, for what they are, but if the work has been correctly done, and they do not, the cheapest way out is to sell the rifle, and try another. By the time that you get to one that you like, you may have become a fair to middling bedder and trigger adjuster, but that is all to the good. Ultimately, is one becomes interested in the pure pursuit of accuracy, the cost of a barrel and chambering job, and any corrective work that the action needs, ends up being an excellent investment. I would rather have a few really good rifles, than five times as many that are mediocre. My advice to the many shooters that I know that have more money tied up in rifles than I do, is to sell as many as it takes to build one really good one. Once you do, the rest will never come out of the safe, unless you are going hunting.
Last edited:
brian roberts
New member
Well, Boyd; as I said in one of those previous........................
posts, there IS some new info coming out soon, but unfortunately, no one is quite sure how to interpret it as yet, there's a physicist working at it, and even HE is stumped. But, I can arrange to get you a tube or two done, you just pay the freight each way.
Send me a PM, we'll talk.
posts, there IS some new info coming out soon, but unfortunately, no one is quite sure how to interpret it as yet, there's a physicist working at it, and even HE is stumped. But, I can arrange to get you a tube or two done, you just pay the freight each way.
Send me a PM, we'll talk.
Boyd Allen
Active member
Generous offer, but I am more of a researcher and reporter these days. I will ask around among some credible competitors and see if one of them has a barrel that is just a little off the mark, in a way that might be attributable to stress relief issues. Semi related story...Some time ago a new barrel maker donated a barrel to a project that was designed to showcase a new action. The rifle ended up in the hands of an experienced and successful competitor who was shooting every day after work through the Michigan winter. (stout lad) The donated barrel would shoot very well fro the first five shots, and anything after that was a three. The barrel maker had built a stress relieving oven that was well made but which had different characteristics than those of a helpful competitor had shared stress relieving time and temp. information with him. After the problem with the donated barrel was discovered, it was returned to the maker, who re stress relived it, by heating in a nitrogen atmosphere ( to prevent scaling) a brush hone, similar to the kind that are used to refinish the bores of brake cylinders, through the bore to make sure that the interior finish was uniform and correct. The fellow that had initially diagnosed the problem told me that he would not have believed that it was the same barrel. The problem was solved. I have heard of one other instance where a well known barrel manufacturer did the same thing, and fixed a problem barrel. My point in all of this, is that variations in stress relief may be a silent source of the differences in how barrels shoot. The hitch is trying to find a way to objectively measure the condition of the barrel, before and after treatment. This is partially why I made reference to the vibratory stress relief article. In that process a graph is produced, that is compared to graphs made after treatment(s) If the second and third graphs show no change, then the barrel was fully stress relieved by its first treatment. I propose that this process may also be used to study results of cryo treatment. If a barrel's graphs are all the same, then it came to the process fully stress relieved. Of course this presupposes that the graphs show what they say that they do.
Last edited:
brian roberts
New member
It may be practical to drop the..........................
term, "stress relief" when addressing the proper cryogenic process, as stabilization may preclude the absorption of most of the heat in the intended applications. Coupled with a tremendous increase in the carbides as a result of transfer, these are probably the greater dividends of the process, when performed adequately, and may be a toss-up as to which is the greater contributor to wear-resistance. This will require longer periods in the super-cold regions than initially utilized. "Stabilization of Materials" may be a more convenient position to consider.
Research is leaning more in this direction, and the interest is finally turning to this area on the map.
term, "stress relief" when addressing the proper cryogenic process, as stabilization may preclude the absorption of most of the heat in the intended applications. Coupled with a tremendous increase in the carbides as a result of transfer, these are probably the greater dividends of the process, when performed adequately, and may be a toss-up as to which is the greater contributor to wear-resistance. This will require longer periods in the super-cold regions than initially utilized. "Stabilization of Materials" may be a more convenient position to consider.
Research is leaning more in this direction, and the interest is finally turning to this area on the map.
Boyd Allen
Active member
"...as stabilization may preclude the absorption of most of the heat in the intended applications." Are you saying that proper cryogenic treatment of a barrel will keep it from getting hot, or as hot from repeated firing in a short period of time? A little further explanation may be in order. Also, Doug Shilen's point was about one steel alloy, and whether it might actually be able to be stress relieved through the use of cold treatment, not about whether the process could be used to accomplish this with other alloys. Also I don't believe that he was speaking to the conversion of residual austinite, or the formation of beneficial carbides. At the time of the great Cryo todo, it was being touted as a stress relief process with additional benefits with regards to wear, and ease of cleaning. The test was done at Sierra pretty much showed that neither was true, for the match grade hand lapped 416R barrels that were part of the test (I believe). If you are saying that with proper cryo treatment benefits are achieved that could not have been achieved using the equipment and hold times that have been typically used in the past, then it would seem that the call should go out to the serious prairie dog shooters to help demonstrate that this the case, or perhaps someone would like to volunteer to treat some more of Sierra's test barrels. If a better process, with different machinery will actually deliver the goods, I think that this is great, but after previous experiences that have been published here and elsewhere, what seems to be called for is a controlled test that would convince any reader.
Last edited: