What about Chrome-moly barrels?

As I had it explained to me, CM barrels wear continually & accuracy degrades progressively during their effective lifetime; stainless toddle along with precision until they suddenly go belly up.

However, the discussion of that day concerned belly shooting not BR, so the condition may not apply to barrels with the short life expectancy of BR rifles.
 
Thanks John

John Kielly said:
As I had it explained to me, CM barrels wear continually & accuracy degrades progressively during their effective lifetime; stainless toddle along with precision until they suddenly go belly up.

However, the discussion of that day concerned belly shooting not BR, so the condition may not apply to barrels with the short life expectancy of BR rifles.
Click to expand...

I suspected it may bs something to do with rust or more difficult to machine , etc. I have noticed that some makers offer them. Hard to believe that as soft as SS barrels are they would wear better than CM. Not saying it ain't so though.

Pete
 
Pete Wass said:
I suspected it may be something to do with rust or more difficult to machine
Click to expand...
Our local Brisbane barrel maker, Total Solutions Engineering offers both chrome moly & stainless. So did the firm under the previous management going back to 1984.
 
I think I remember reading it was the difficulty to lap a chrome moly barrel. Todd
 
Last edited:
Had both.
The CM are much harder to put on target after a cleaning.
Never had a corrosion issue on them.
 
Pete Wass said:
I suspected it may bs something to do with rust or more difficult to machine , etc. I have noticed that some makers offer them. Hard to believe that as soft as SS barrels are they would wear better than CM. Not saying it ain't so though.

Pete
Click to expand...

SS barrels are far better at withstanding heat of initial combustion degradation. One of the principle reasons they're used in CF.
They are harder to lap a taper into.
As far as rust???? Me, I don't leave my competition guns outside between matches.
 
Last edited:
tim said:
SS barrels are far better at withstanding heat of initial combustion degradation. One of the principle reasons they're used in CF.
They are harder to lap a taper into.
As far as rust???? Me, I don't leave my competition guns outside between matches.
Click to expand...

Really, what part of the internet did you learn that?
 
Butch Lambert said:
Really, what part of the internet did you learn that?
Click to expand...

Now Butch, While this is about as helpful as chuckle chuckle, was there something you disagree with or did you simply accidentally fill a depends??
Humor aside, I don't recall hearing that you've ever been to a rimfire match .

Is not CM generally harder than SS, in particular 416 rather han 416R ?
 
Last edited:
Ed Hosier said:
Good read

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?141291-Stainless-Steel-Barrels-410-vs-416-vs-416R

Ed
Click to expand...

That 's a pretty good read.
A fair amount of it is what I alluded to in my comment, the heat tolerance. Really not that revevant in the rimfire world but in the CF BR world where most are shooting a 6PPC at over 60,000 psi you're usually going to scap a barrel once the throat gets heavily heat checked and that rocughness begins to excessivly copper foul.
The article mentions the difference between 416 and 416R but while it is the inclusion of sulpher, P.J. Hart explained to me, really it is trial and error as to amount because while the machinability increases, basically your adding dirt to the mix and past a certain point you get steel full of inclusions and while Crucible supplied the best 416R the mix was always trial and error, probably having a lot to do wth some lots producing great barrels, others....not so much.
I cannot remember exactly when but the old PS magazine had a few articles discussing the heat resistance of the 400 series SS alloys vs CM and it was not insignificant.
While I know Butch hangs out at Shilen's he might have forgotten where Ed started as well as where button rifling started and why, etc., etc.
probably all under the banner of useless trivia under the rimfire benchrest banner.
That said I know, and have seen CM barrels every bit as good as the best of the SS ones over the years.

The 410 series is pretty interesting but I don't know that much about it in barrel applications, only in blade making applications where it has superior properties as quite tough, very good edge holding and very good stress recovery where some of these blades have to be bent to extreme degrees and recover as well as hundereds of cuts through thick hemp rope and maintain edge.
 
Last edited:
tim said:
That 's a pretty good read.
A fair amount of it is what I alluded to in my comment, the heat tolerance. Really not that revevant in the rimfire world but in the CF BR world where most are shooting a 6PPC at over 60,000 psi you're usually going to scap a barrel once the throat gets heavily heat checked and that rocughness begins to excessivly copper foul.
The article mentions the difference between 416 and 416R but while it is the inclusion of sulpher, P.J. Hart explained to me, really it is trial and error as to amount because while the machinability increases, basically your adding dirt to the mix and past a certain point you get steel full of inclusions and while Crucible supplied the best 416R the mix was always trial and error, probably having a lot to do wth some lots producing great barrels, others....not so much.
I cannot remember exactly when but the old PS magazine had a few articles discussing the heat resistance of the 400 series SS alloys vs CM and it was not insignificant.
While I know Butch hangs out at Shilen's he might have forgotten where Ed started as well as where button rifling started and why, etc., etc.
probably all under the banner of useless trivia under the rimfire benchrest banner.
That said I know, and have seen CM barrels every bit as good as the best of the SS ones over the years.

The 410 series is pretty interesting but I don't know that much about it in barrel applications, only in blade making applications where it has superior properties as quite tough, very good edge holding and very good stress recovery where some of these blades have to be bent to extreme degrees and recover as well as hundereds of cuts through thick hemp rope and maintain edge.
Click to expand...

You may learn Kid that Kreiger tried 410 several years ago when the cold weather barrel failures came about. You may want to ask them why they no longer use it. I believe in the article above it hints that 410, 416, and 17-4 make better barrel material than 416R. Do you wonder why they don't use that steel if it is superior. I guess I didn't know we were speaking of Shilen and where button rifling came from. Where are your facts on 416R being better than 4140 or 4150.
 
Butch Lambert said:
You may learn Kid that Kreiger tried 410 several years ago when the cold weather barrel failures came about. You may want to ask them why they no longer use it. I believe in the article above it hints that 410, 416, and 17-4 make better barrel material than 416R. Do you wonder why they don't use that steel if it is superior. I guess I didn't know we were speaking of Shilen and where button rifling came from. Where are your facts on 416R being better than 4140 or 4150.
Click to expand...

Now Butch, calm down and take notes. No place did I say anything about 410. No place did I say 416R is better than 416, simply both are widespread.
Some of the cut rifled makers avoid it because for their applications, it tears. Not better or worse simply different for their particular methodology.
As far as what is being hinted...that's your interpretation.
I'd wager I know more bbl makers and own or have owned more SS match barrels in more configurations than you know exist.
Now I know Harts use R because they believe it machines better and buttons better, however when Crucible had supply issues everybody scrambled all over including Germany and Italy but nobody could get two lots the same.
Now that said, the point was made that SS is common because of it's heat resistance which would appear to be accurate after all, reading through the article..... no apology necessary.

Now as far as calling me kid.......well I don't know ? I should probably mention that my first BR rifles were built by Clyde Hart and Fred Sinclair so.....this ain't my first rodeo.
 
Last edited:
You rodeo d in NY? Seely Masker built my first two BR rifles. Yes they had Hart Barrels and shot very well. Several years ago, one of the Harts did flint napping. I gathered a wooden ammo shipping crate with flint and gave it to him.
Tim, The point of my response is I have seen nothing that says CM burns up faster than a SS barrel other than a couple people posting that. I have actually used a couple CM barrels in SR benchrest and saw no difference in accuracy or longevity. Does it mean that CM is as good or better than SS? No, this was just my experience. I do have a bore scope.
Yup, been around for a year or two.
Oh, about you using more and different barrels than I or knew existed, what does that mean? You must have found it hard to find one that satisfied you.
 
Last edited:
Butch,

If we talk about belly shooting (Commonwealth TR), back when Nev Madden introduced stainless barrels to Australia we were getting up to 3500 rounds of acceptable accuracy from the various CM barrels used at the time. Those of us lucky to get one of Nev's first run of stainless tubes got around 5-6000 rounds out of them. One assigned as a club loaner ran up 10,000 rounds without total degradation of accuracy.

Some Brits I know of habitually polish the throat with JB or the like every several hundred rounds to break the sharpness of the throat crocodiling & that with their slow rate of fire, shooting in trios alternatively as they do seems to give them better barrel life than we would accept these days.

Now I know that is not BR, but it is another way of looking at it.

John
 
John Kielly said:
Butch,

If we talk about belly shooting (Commonwealth TR), back when Nev Madden introduced stainless barrels to Australia we were getting up to 3500 rounds of acceptable accuracy from the various CM barrels used at the time. Those of us lucky to get one of Nev's first run of stainless tubes got around 5-6000 rounds out of them. One assigned as a club loaner ran up 10,000 rounds without total degradation of accuracy.

Some Brits I know of habitually polish the throat with JB or the like every several hundred rounds to break the sharpness of the throat crocodiling & that with their slow rate of fire, shooting in trios alternatively as they do seems to give them better barrel life than we would accept these days.

Now I know that is not BR, but it is another way of looking at it.

John
Click to expand...

Thanks John.
 
Butch Lambert said:
You rodeo d in NY? Seely Masker built my first two BR rifles. Yes they had Hart Barrels and shot very well. Several years ago, one of the Harts did flint napping. I gathered a wooden ammo shipping crate with flint and gave it to him.
Tim, The point of my response is I have seen nothing that says CM burns up faster than a SS barrel other than a couple people posting that. I have actually used a couple CM barrels in SR benchrest and saw no difference in accuracy or longevity. Does it mean that CM is as good or better than SS? No, this was just my experience. I do have a bore scope.
Yup, been around for a year or two.
Oh, about you using more and different barrels than I or knew existed, what does that mean? You must have found it hard to find one that satisfied you.
Click to expand...

I am.....the barrel wisperer.:confused:

P.S. Seely used to come to matches with his wood paneled station wagon with a fake artillery shell strapped to the roof rack that was about 2' across and about 6' long.

P.P.S. Remember you got one of those rare Remmy BR scopes because I passed on it so.....you owe me.;)
 
Last edited:
Saying a person had a ss and cm barrel of the same length, would they tune the same? I'm only talking rimfire. Todd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top