Making Weight

Boyd, some of our barrels never cool off between relays. What I was saying though was a hunterclass taper could save a significant amount of weight and still be plenty stiff. It would probably really respond to a tuner.
Butch
 
Butch...

Butch Lambert said:
Boyd, some of our barrels never cool off between relays. What I was saying though was a hunterclass taper could save a significant amount of weight and still be plenty stiff. It would probably really respond to a tuner.
Butch
Click to expand...

Dan Lilja claims that a hunter weight taper barrel is stiffer than a LV taper due to the 1.25" cylinder section even though it has more taper to the muzzle end. See his website. Just a FYI.
 
Stiffness

Stiffness. I think to a certain point, it might be overplayed. As an example, take my Rail Gun. It has a 1.450 diameter barrel hanging out of a 6 inch long barrel block. It will shoot "zeros", but let it get out of tune,and it will shoot 1/4 inch. All of the barrel in the world doesn't help a tune that is not in sync.


I guess the big question is, "when do we reach the point of diminishing returns with barrel weight"........JACKIE
 
glp,
I guess that I don't understand your statement. The LV barrel blanks that I use are 1.250" straight for 3" and tapers to .840 at 28". The hunterclass blanks are 1.250" for 3" and taper to .750 at 28". I don't see how the hunter barrel could be stiffer. I believe that it would be stiff enough though.
Butch
 
Butch, aren't true LV blanks 1.200 at the breech? I've heard the "Hunter taper is stiffer than a LV taper" arguement before, and it makes sense to me. I'm just not convinced that a true LV isn't stiff enough, even if you use a minimum amount of the straight cylinder end. I believe a good barrel will shoot, and a ho-hum one will shoot just that...ho-hum.

-Dave-:)
 
Dave,
I believe that both are stiff enough. The Shilen chart shows them both to be 1.250". I have other brands that vary, so maybe some are different. I agree, some are hummers and some are bummers.
Butch
 
All this talk about stiffness and barrels got me going, as it probably did for lots of others. Hit Dan's site and looked at weights and contours and all that stuff. Man do I feel EXTRA FAT ;)

All of these barrels came off one Rem700 action and all shot or is shooting very well
* new 6mm F Class barrel, 7.5 lbs, 30.25" long, 1.250" for 5" then straight tapers to .960 @ 24" and .890" @ 30.25"
* retired FClass 6mm barrel (3799 rounds), 7.0 lbs, 27.75" long, 1.250" for 5", then straight tapers to .915" @ 27"
* Didn't unscrew the new 30 cal (308) barrel my FClass rig is wearing now, but it is 24" long, 1.250" for 5", then tapers to .750 @ 24"
* 30 Cal VHunter 308 barrel, 4.25 lbs, 22.5" long, 1.200 for 4.5", then straight tapers to .790 at 22.5"

That is the nice thing about F Class game, with a 22lb limit, what can't you hang of the rifle and still make weight :eek:

It only stands to reason the lighter thinner barrels should be more stiffer as well, with less barrel droop hanging there off the action threads.

At the end of the season I totally free floated my Fclass BlueSmurf FPig after breaking in and tuning the new 6mm and the new 308 with about 1" of barrel support/bedding, and they shoot even better now. They both have a really low round count at this point and they could be just coming on now too but free floating sure didn't hurt them any. It was the only way to go since it is a switch barrel rig and there is a thou or so difference in the barrel shank diameters of these two barrels.

Jackie, your statement (I guess the big question is, "when do we reach the point of diminishing returns with barrel weight"........JACKIE ) could go both ways. Too heavy maybe a bad thing too unless you are barrel blocked. Too light and you are heating up faster, but is that a bad thing? Maybe the barrel's bore gets a hair bigger and you engrave the bullet less, giving it a higher BC than one that is all deformed from a tight fit. Heck, who knows here the answer is. The good answer is like barrels, each is different and makes someone happy eh :D
 
Last edited:
As important as contour is where the barrel is cut. Jackie has written many times that he leaves a vary short shank and does very well with barrels well under 5#. I have a HBR contour barrel that I made the mistake of cutting off so that I left a maximum of shank, negating the potential weight advantage. ( I was over focused on stiffness.) Later I turned the shank down to 1.20" removing a small amount of weight, with no apparent change in accuracy. If I had it to do over I would have gone with an inch of shank, turned that to 1.20", and put the weight saved into a tuner.
 
RG's correct. An NBRSA Hunter taper barrel with 4"-5" of shank is a dandy on a LV gun. Instead of getting hung up on the .750 @ 26" figure and thinking they aren't rigid enough, check the muzzle diameter at what these barrels are normally cut to. The weight difference also makes for a more balanced rifle. For those of us that shoot both Hunter and LV guns, it also simplifies the barrel inventory. The Beggs tuners will work...the threads will just start a bit behind the muzzle.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Al,
How long, what caliber, what weight?
Click to expand...

Boyd, I weighed 6 of 'em I have here. They range from 4lbs/15oz. to 5lbs/1oz. , are unfluted, from 21.25"-21.75" long, are .30 cals. chambered in 30BR and 30 WolfPup (30BR .240 long...kinda' ;)), are a mix of 4"/5" shank lengths and shank o.d.'s of 1.200/1.250. Muzzle diameters are all in the .850 range.

Since the .30's will be a bit lighter than a comparable 6mm, I weighed my 22" Hunter taper Lilja chambered in 6BR with a 1.250 dia. 4" shank length...it goes 5lb/2oz.

I'd think a 21" long Hunter taper chambered in a .085-.100 short 22PPC or a 220 Beggs would be smooth with ten 'o's (smooooooooooth) as a true LV? :cool:

I gotta be careful talkin' like that, though. My HBR gun is already pizzed at me for spending time with my two Big Scope Guns. If IT overhears me lusting after another....well, I shudder at the thought. :D
 
Last edited:
Al,

Thanks for the information. You make my point. The configuration that you favor is heavier than is compatible with the usual stock and one of the heavier new scopes, and even if it would squeak in, there would be nothing left to balance the rifle. Most .30 cal. shooters that I have talked with don't shoot a 10.5# rifle free recoil, so balance is less of an issue. I like to have my rifle balanced so that shooting free is an option, and that requires some weight in the butt. Otherwise, it is a bit nose heavy.

Some time ago, it occurred to me that barrels could be around 72 oz. with any surplus rifle weight invested in balance. Later, Dick Wright asked this board for suggestions for questions for a second or third ( I forget) Boyer interview. I suggested that he ask Tony if he would trade barrel weight for rifle balance. Dick used the question, and Tony answered that he would. Now maybe he has his barrels fluted, but given what I have read about his expected barrel accuracy life, I doubt that he does, so that leaves length and/or contour. Using these variables, I think that what Jackie does makes good sense, and I suspect that a HBR taper with a short 1.2" dia. shank would be accurate, a bit lighter, and work well with a tuner. Also, it seems to me that if you are setting a 10.5# rifle up with a tuner, having the ultimate in barrel stiffness may be at cross purposes with the tuner.
 
Boyd Allen said:
Al,

Thanks for the information. You make my point. The configuration that you favor is heavier than is compatible with the usual stock and one of the heavier new scopes, and even if it would squeak in, there would be nothing left to balance the rifle.
Click to expand...

Ahh.....but here's the deal, Boyd.

With a Hunter taper barrel, the weight is further toward the action, resulting in a less 'nose heavy' gun than with a LV barrel of the same weight but a shorter shank length. :) I've used both setups on my LV gun and the difference in how the gun handles is huge..in favor of the Hunter taper barrel. Admittedly, my junk is all .30 cal. stuff...in a 22 or a 6, the effects may be less noticeable.

Even though we're looked upon as troglodytes :eek: by most BR shooters, the Hunter benchrest guys have the balance issues pretty well sorted out. There's nothing more evil to shoot than a nose heavy Hunter gun. :D
 
Last edited:
The Hart barrel on an early Wichita 1375 barreled by F Pindell in 6 P.P.C. :

Barrel diameter at the receiver ring 1.190" with a straight taper to .840" at 20.5" long .

Glenn:D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here are some weights to compare . . .

Boyd Allen said:
Al,

Thanks for the information. You make my point. The configuration that you favor is heavier than is compatible with the usual stock and one of the heavier new scopes, and even if it would squeak in, there would be nothing left to balance the rifle. Most .30 cal. shooters that I have talked with don't shoot a 10.5# rifle free recoil, so balance is less of an issue. I like to have my rifle balanced so that shooting free is an option, and that requires some weight in the butt. Otherwise, it is a bit nose heavy.

Some time ago, it occurred to me that barrels could be around 72 oz. with any surplus rifle weight invested in balance. Later, Dick Wright asked this board for suggestions for questions for a second or third ( I forget) Boyer interview. I suggested that he ask Tony if he would trade barrel weight for rifle balance. Dick used the question, and Tony answered that he would. Now maybe he has his barrels fluted, but given what I have read about his expected barrel accuracy life, I doubt that he does, so that leaves length and/or contour. Using these variables, I think that what Jackie does makes good sense, and I suspect that a HBR taper with a short 1.2" dia. shank would be accurate, a bit lighter, and work well with a tuner. Also, it seems to me that if you are setting a 10.5# rifle up with a tuner, having the ultimate in barrel stiffness may be at cross purposes with the tuner.
Click to expand...

Boyd, back to the Lilja article: if you chose to use the SAME cylinder length & diameter (in the case of most Hunter: LV contours, this will be about 1.20") and the same barrel length , but use the Hunter taper, the barrel will still be stiffer than a [so called] LV contour: using 1.0" less shank -for the Hunter barrel, as compared to the LV - will save a LOT of weight . . . and, again, it will still be of, at least, equal rigidity. In my experience, this makes for good for tuning - on Hunter rigs, I like to use ALL of the legal shank, and simply cut-off the muzzle end to make weight: I have plenty of 20.5" barrels and a few even shorter! :eek:

Using a couple of [cut-off] barrel shanks (diameters unaltered from the "as manufactured" state), here are the comparative weights for a 6MM vs. a thirty caliber: 6mm @ 1.198" diameter, weighs a whopping 4.92 OUNCES per inch of length; a sample thirty caliber, @ 1.215" diameter, tallies 4.77 OUNCES per 1.00" of length. So, yes, using a Spears/Davidson type tuner, as made and sold by Butch Lambert (ShadeTree Engineering), in conbination with a NBRSA Hunter contour barrel, one can easily, "have-his-cake-and-eat-it-too !:eek::D

But having said this, perhaps my Spears/Davidson type tuners will want me to use even less shank than usual - I'm told that tuners probably work better with somewhat more "willowy" barrels . . . :D Since Butch was kind enough to provide some Hunter diameter tuners (.800" x 32 TPI), I'm fixin' to find out! :eek: ;) The NBRSA Hunter contour offers more options than the traditional LV contour.

Regarding the heating issue: our Hunter barrels, are typically chambered for cartridges which use roughly 50% more powder - often the SAME powder(s) which are popular in the PPC - and probably the same pressure;some of us shoot fairly fast.:eek: Heating is not an issue . . . well, not with a barrel worth having on a competition rifle. RG
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top