The answer should be "it doesn't walk". A good barrel won't walk, no matter how hot it gets.
Anyone use fluted barrels?
- Thread starter 806 guns
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
The answer should be "it doesn't walk". A good barrel won't walk, no matter how hot it gets.
std7mag
Well-Known Member
No offense meant towards @ntsqd, but there is a reason that test units are built after the engineers model something using computer modeling.
Real life things have a habit of reacting differently than the computer modeling predictions.
Having turned wrenches on cars, motorcycles, race cars, aircraft and being a machinist has perhaps given me a dim view of computer modeling.
Working in pitcrews, the saying is that "engineers are great, till the first turn".
Where the rubber meets the road is where you really find out what is going on.
Working on aircraft and machining, you learn that form affects function when it comes to metal. You can also see this in knife and sword making.
Having said that, the lightest rifle I ever had was a NULA 24B in 280 Rem. 5.5lbs bare.
Total weight with EGW one piece base (20 MOA), Vortex Viper rings, Sightron SII, and nylon sling was just over 7 lbs.
Melvin Forbes used a 24", 1.5 contour barrel on these. No flutes. Full length bedding.
Where he saved his weight was the stock.
That rifle without flutes, with the thicker barrel was lighter than the Weatherby Mark V Ultra Lightweight and the Mark V Weathermark LT that I have. Both of those with fluted barrels.
As for POI shifts with skinny barrels, I don't totally buy into it either.
My first F-Open match. 600 yards.
My first time shooting that far. First time shooting in a match. First time shooting prone.
Rifle is a Stevens 200 that I reamed the chamber of the factory barrel from 7mm-08 to 7mm-08AI.
Shot a 173, 173-1X, 173-2X.
Real life things have a habit of reacting differently than the computer modeling predictions.
Having turned wrenches on cars, motorcycles, race cars, aircraft and being a machinist has perhaps given me a dim view of computer modeling.
Working in pitcrews, the saying is that "engineers are great, till the first turn".
Where the rubber meets the road is where you really find out what is going on.
Working on aircraft and machining, you learn that form affects function when it comes to metal. You can also see this in knife and sword making.
Having said that, the lightest rifle I ever had was a NULA 24B in 280 Rem. 5.5lbs bare.
Total weight with EGW one piece base (20 MOA), Vortex Viper rings, Sightron SII, and nylon sling was just over 7 lbs.
Melvin Forbes used a 24", 1.5 contour barrel on these. No flutes. Full length bedding.
Where he saved his weight was the stock.
That rifle without flutes, with the thicker barrel was lighter than the Weatherby Mark V Ultra Lightweight and the Mark V Weathermark LT that I have. Both of those with fluted barrels.
As for POI shifts with skinny barrels, I don't totally buy into it either.
My first F-Open match. 600 yards.
My first time shooting that far. First time shooting in a match. First time shooting prone.
Rifle is a Stevens 200 that I reamed the chamber of the factory barrel from 7mm-08 to 7mm-08AI.
Shot a 173, 173-1X, 173-2X.
Attachments
ntsqd
Well-Known Member
I'm all of those things too (have crewed drag, road, and currently desert racing, and worked under a Master Tool & Die maker), as well as being employed as a Tooling Design Engineer for the last decade. That is why I've been calling this an experiment. It's not intended to be absolute. It is intended to be predictive of what can be expected. As this is a part and not a system, the model will more closely predict reality. When you get into modeling systems is where all of those tiny deviance's in each part becomes a huge deviance in the system.
However, when you've been thru the design / build / test cycle enough times you start to adjust how you model the parts and assemblies so that they do not have those large deviances. There will always be the project or part that catches you off-guard, but experience in the process is very important.
IME it is when the machinist decides that what was designed won't work and changes or ignores crucial dims is when the assembly doesn't perform as expected. I've seen both sides, I clearly recall seeing a design very early in my career that the machinist said was going to break, and I agreed. The designer was insistent that his stress analysis was good and that it wouldn't break. He machined it as designed and we put it into the worst possible case use. It broke almost immediately. (He was a 4.3 GPA and what my grandfather called an "Educated Idiot".) The machinist (himself a Master's in Manufacturing Technology) made a call, added about .125" to the profile in the thin area where it broke, we built it again and as far as I know it is still in service unbroken.
BUT, I've also had designs "adjusted" by the machinist that didn't work. It only after having the part run thru metrology that these adjustments were discovered. Remaking the parts as designed allowed the assembly to function as intended.
People tend to always remember the mistakes that Engineers make without ever remembering their successes. If it is man-made the odds are that at least one Engineer had something to do with it somewhere and more than likely a lot of different Engineers had something to do with it's being made thru that whole manufacturing process.
However, when you've been thru the design / build / test cycle enough times you start to adjust how you model the parts and assemblies so that they do not have those large deviances. There will always be the project or part that catches you off-guard, but experience in the process is very important.
IME it is when the machinist decides that what was designed won't work and changes or ignores crucial dims is when the assembly doesn't perform as expected. I've seen both sides, I clearly recall seeing a design very early in my career that the machinist said was going to break, and I agreed. The designer was insistent that his stress analysis was good and that it wouldn't break. He machined it as designed and we put it into the worst possible case use. It broke almost immediately. (He was a 4.3 GPA and what my grandfather called an "Educated Idiot".) The machinist (himself a Master's in Manufacturing Technology) made a call, added about .125" to the profile in the thin area where it broke, we built it again and as far as I know it is still in service unbroken.
BUT, I've also had designs "adjusted" by the machinist that didn't work. It only after having the part run thru metrology that these adjustments were discovered. Remaking the parts as designed allowed the assembly to function as intended.
People tend to always remember the mistakes that Engineers make without ever remembering their successes. If it is man-made the odds are that at least one Engineer had something to do with it somewhere and more than likely a lot of different Engineers had something to do with it's being made thru that whole manufacturing process.
The all to often words uttered after a tragedy from people not following engineers recommendations etc. Collapsed bridges, collapsed balconies, derailed trains.............. etc
"We have always done it that way and its never been a problem"
Yeh engineers screwup sometime usually missing some unrecognized combination of stresses etc but they save countless lives thru improved safety along with some of the most spectacular creations.
"We have always done it that way and its never been a problem"
Yeh engineers screwup sometime usually missing some unrecognized combination of stresses etc but they save countless lives thru improved safety along with some of the most spectacular creations.
