Some final thought's

GordonE

New member
Some might think i am plugging a Barrel maker. For those that do. A few years ago Butch Hongisto was making a lot of winning rifles. He was useing Cut Border barrels. They were expensive and hard to get. Now you can get a cut barrel here in the good ole USA.
I have had a few of these barrels. They tune different than a button barrel. Are they better, Only time will tell. The inside of a barrel has a lot more to do with the way it tunes than the outside. A barrel with loose and tight spots, Isn't round, isn't crowned in the right spot. Won't shoot good enough to tune. A good Chamber may also help. If people think they are all the same. They believe in Santa Clause. As far as tuners go i would doubt that there isn't any that won't work to some degree.

As for me. No gunsmith has given more to Rimfire than Bill Calfee. What and why he does things is his business not mine.
 
Dam ! Gordon I thought you were Santa Clause. are you" saying there is no Santa " We are wishing you and your family A merry Christmas even if you are not Santa. garrisone.
 
GordonE

Howdy Gordon,
I read with interest what you were saying about stress relieved barrels. Please let me pass this on for you to consider. I have some rifles Eric Johnson, the barrel maker/gunsmith/shooter built. Eric made cut rifled barrels. I had a conversation with a guy who was very knowledgable about Johnson barrels, and at least some of the details about how he made them.

I am only repeating what I was told, he was probably doing likewise. What I was told, was that Eric would straighten the barrel after EACH CUT. I was told that this was to make sure that the barrel was as straight as possible. I have a copy of a document from an employer that Eric worked for early in his carreer. It said he was especially good at straightening barrels.

I understand that the barrel shape can change as material is cut from the inside. I have no machining background, and this is where I get stuck trying to understand what I was told. It would seem impossible to me to be able to remove, straighten, and replace the barrel in the machine with each cut, and be able to get done in any time period to sell the barrel at any kind of a reasonable cost to the customer, or profit for the gunsmith.

I don't know what the impact on the barrel would be from this. Would it relieve stress to the barrels? Would it add stress to the barrels? Whatever he did, his barrels were considered great.

Where would this fit in with what you were saying about stress relieved barrels?

Thank you!

Greg

P.S. I apologize for being involved in the hijacking of your other thread. It was deep in the thread that I posted, but it was your thread. Again, I apologize.
 
Gordon; since you are interesed in some of.......................

these things, let me give you something else to think about. When you speak of hard and soft spots, contouring, and muzzle "growth" as a result of that contouring, much of that can, and has, been eliminated as a result of a proper cryogenic process, (yeah, I know, SOS, cryo...again. But wait, hear me out.) performed using the vacuum-insulated machine though, not using some "BOX" and saying to me, "Yup, I cryo'd 'er, Uhyulk". :rolleyes: Now I know, everybody will jump in and say, "....but kevin says, that..." I really don't care too much what anyone else has to say, I'm speaking of the stabilization of material, and that's all. But a guy by the name of Ray Bowman will not "not use" the process, even if a customer tells him he doesn't want it done.

Suppose you wanted to make a really "FAST" barrel, how would you go about making a barrel that was really fast, but you didn't want a cylinder profile? I'm talking about a barrel that would need a heavier charge than what was normally used, that would exhibit higher velocities than normal, yet would not exhibit dangerous pressures out of the norm. I spoke to a 3rd gen. smith (last name starts w/H), and we were speaking about out-of-spec. barrels being a little oversize, just not up-to-snuff, and only used for experience or experimentation. I asked, "Well, how about deliberately making the bore and groove .001 oversize? Its easier to get a bullet to travel faster by obturating and filling an oversize...."CAN'T do it, it won't have any accuracy, we tried that, besides, under competitive conditions the muzzle grows, accuracy is lost. Nope. No good at all, we tried it." I said, "Yes, you may have tried it in the past, but did you ever try it when the material was properly stabilized? You don't know what could be done under those conditions because you've never been given the opportunity." (Long silence, here) "You're right......." (He hasn't gotten back to me, yet.) By the way, in the "fast" context, I'm speaking of centerfires only, the rimfires I wouldn't try that with......yet

Now, speaking of long barrel life, what about taking a piece of raw bar, before it is squared, and properly cryo processing that, then squaring and rifling it, then fitting it. Now, it has been stabilized, so, lets nitride (QPQ salt bath) it for longevity, then cryo it again, to stabilize the stresses, if any, that were imparted when nitriding was done? Granted, this may well be out of the bouinds of "sensible risk" for most, but not for others, maybe quite a few others.
Suppose, in the rimfire context, we tried the cryo approach. Why?? Well, I wonder if it could be made so that, perhaps, tuners weren't necessary, I am NOT saying they will not, or do not work, but maybe they don't have to be made as heavy, or as large, or as long, or take as much TIME TO GET THEM "IN", as it does now. Who knows? I don't, but, the age of experimentation must BE DEAD in Br,( or bR) as far as cryogenics is concerned, anyway, because everyone wants to build tuners and other "things because, "They WORK". Well, no stuff, but other things may work, too, except everyone is convinced that at least proper cryo will not, after all, everyone KNOWS it, "don't wurk."
ALL the meaningful research on this subject is coming from India and China, and the Chinese are jumping on this, big-time, in their aviation industry. We wonder why all the jobs are fleeing this country?? Well, a lot of it IS corporate greed, but there is also the fact that some people out there are working at building a better mousetrap, while others seem to be self-relegating themselves to the status of audience members, watching the world beat a path.........:confused::mad:
 
Great Post:

It has occured to me that one thing keeping prgress back is what some refer to as "The definition of Insanity"; doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting different results.

In this smallish community of Benchrest we don't have access to all the leading edge things that might help us and many don't have the money, time or inclination to experiment to the degree you are speaking of. What would be real nice is some sort of pooling or sharing of "New Discoveries" or a Org that informs interested parties of What's Up. A number of those working with these things are trying to make a living doing it. I would think it difficult to turn out winning rifles AND major experimentation. There are X number of productive hours in a day, eh? I think time is the biggest problem for everyone. We don't have enough of it left.
 
Last edited:
Brian,
We have tried the QPQ salt bath with one of our barrels on a 10/22 and got a average increase in velocity of 40fps with Eley black box and RWS.

We have a barrel coming back right now from being QPQ salt bath nitrided that we will be testing for accuracy and CL ring buildup.

We also have been playing with alot of different rifling profiles, bore and groove sizes, contours, fluting, and anything else we can dream up, plus we are lucky enough to have Gordon to put them on and spend his time and ammo testing them.


Paul Tolvstad
Rock Creek Barrels
 
Pete, Thanks a bunch for such an....................

encouraging post, I feel the same way. I realize some things aren't for everyone, and I understand that some are pressed for finances, not everyone is a CEO. But I will see what I can do to get some support in this area from Rick. In the past he has been very generous with prizes, and I believe he will be working along those lines again this new year.

There are some out here that are not necessarily interested in bench competition, but are, however, interested in performance, even in RF. The point is, I suppose, that gains can be made for all the facets of the sport, if we can open our minds. Instead of "NOPE..." :rolleyes: how about, "What if I tried....?" :D The curiosity factor is what can get things rolling, who knows where we can go from there??

Much has transpired from a decade or more ago when snake-oil salesmen caused havoc in the cryo arena by making claims they could not possibly deliver. There is the ability to keep heat down, can this be beneficial? I hope so, and I believe it can, but there very well may be other things that need to be added, we'll see. Hey, maybe we'll be able to make an RF barrel that has a competitive life expectancy of 20 years...or more, who knows??
Then, would it be frivolous to spend $400-450 for a barrel?? We're almost there now, so if we look harder toward that goal now, we'll already have "ours" sooner than if we wait till we can't afford it, right?? :D;)

I will say this, I will sincerely do whatever I can to help in the quest.....
 
Thanks Brian

What frustrates me is to see a number of people working on a project all in the same sort of direction and none of the effort unified. There are people actually doing work and some others who try to provide scientific data without, apparently, providing direct imput to any of the projects. Of course there is probably a lot going on that isn't being published. I just want to see something great happen before I die is all :)
 
Gordon, You are right. Paul,
I hope to see you at the Super Shoot in May. My excellent Rock Creek 30BR barrel is going to Joel Kendrick for Melonite QPQ and to be cryo'd with the correct method that Brian speaks of.
Butch
 
Back
Top