Christensen Carbon Barrels on Custom Rifles. Accuracy?

[brentc]

Thanks for all the feedback! I'm glad to hear that most of you are getting good, and even great performance with your CA guns and barrels.

Just to give you a little more information, I've tried Berger, Hornady, and Accubond. All had similar results. I also know that the machining, bedding, barrel channel, etc. are good. I've triple checked everything, which included using a borescope to check the throat for any issues. A couple of you have also mentioned that the issue might be the shooter, which to be fair, is often the cause of poor accuracy. However, I can say with absolute confidence that there is a difference between these two CA barrels and other barrels I have used.

For example, after going through the load development process, here is an average group I would get with the CA barrels:View attachment 108486
I recently pulled the CA barrel off one of the actions and put on a Bartlein. I used all the same components--action, stock, trigger, etc.--and I machined everything using the same process and the same reamer. Here is what the gun did with the new barrel after the first round of load development: View attachment 108488
Here is what it is doing now with a little fine tuning:
View attachment 108490

I love the look and feel of the CA carbon barrels, and it sounds like most of you are getting great performance with them. Thanks again for all the feedback, guys!

Here is one of the rifles. I'm putting a new barrel on this one this week.
View attachment 108491

Most folks would have been ultra quick to blame the Leupold!

 

[LambornLR]

Most folks would have been ultra quick to blame the Leupold!

Haha the scope did cross my mind. I switched and completely remounted a different scope, and nothing changed. So... I checked that potential issue of the list.

 

[brentc]

Haha the scope did cross my mind. I switched and completely remounted a different scope, and nothing changed. So... I checked that potential issue of the list.

I'm glad you at least checked. I've seen similar things happen with others that had a Leupold or Vortex mounted. They're were quick to blame the scope's inability to hold zero or track correctly. They're also the ones that end up ****ed when they send their scope back only to have it returned to them with a note saying "after thorough testing, we've found nothing wrong with your optic". On the flip side, when a guy has a Nightforce mounted and starts having issues, "it absolutely can't be the scope because it's a Nightforce".

 

[LambornLR]

I'm glad you at least checked. I've seen similar things happen with others that had a Leupold or Vortex mounted. They're were quick to blame the scope's inability to hold zero or track correctly. They're also the ones that end up ****ed when they send their scope back only to have it returned to them with a note saying "after thorough testing, we've found nothing wrong with your optic". On the flip side, when a guy has a Nightforce mounted and starts having issues, "it absolutely can't be the scope because it's a Nightforce".

Nightforce definitely has that reputation! I shoot both Leupold and Nightforce. I have a 6.5-20x50 Mark 4 that I have used more than all my scopes combined, and it has never skipped a beat. I have seen one Vortex break, but that was because my dad over-torqued the rings. It was pretty obvious that the scope was the issue once we switched it out with another, and Vortex fixed it and sent it back. Hasn't had a problem since!

 

[Mikecr]

What were the load development efforts?

 

[LambornLR]

What were the load development efforts?

I start by shooting two ladders through a chronograph. I am looking for the max charge and velocity nodes. I do this in 0.5g increments. After I have a node identified, I'll load 5 rounds of the same charge, increasing in 0.2g increments through the range of the velocity node. Then I shoot groups to see which is the most accurate and has the best extreme spread. This process has been giving me pretty good results. I'll also test some seating depths, if necessary.

I built my brother-in-law a 300 win mag this summer. Here is the ladder I shot with it:

Here is the ladder I shot with the CA barrel just a few weeks later--also a 300 win mag:

 

[86alaskan]

so you're saying that the 77.5-78.5 node just fell apart when you loaded it? seems like that's where I would've headed.

 

[Rhovee]

That would be hard to see what going on at 100. Either way that's some too shooting. I do something similar.

 

[LambornLR]

so you're saying that the 77.5-78.5 node just fell apart when you loaded it? seems like that's where I would've headed.

Yup, the wheels would fall off. I could get a pretty good extreme spread (ES)--one of the loads had an ES of 9fps--but the accuracy was still averaging around 1MOA, so some groups would be upwards of 1.5MOA.

 

[FURMAN]

I will be the outlier here. I see ZERO valuable data from shooting the way you did at 100 yards. To do a ladder you need to have enough distance to make the es of the load separate the good from the bad. If shooting at 100 yards you should do an OCW test but I have found certain rifles/cartridges do the same as above and you can not find which is the node so in those cases I still ended up doing a real ladder at 500 plus yards. In my experience finding the load the way you are is just dumb luck especially when you go farther out and change temp or altitude. Obviously I can not tell others what to do. It is your decision. Just do not be surprised when the rifle will not repeat or flat out won't group. I have tried every load development method on the net and the most repeatable is a true ladder shot at 800-1000 yards period. I have taken known great loads and done what your pics depict and they will typically have those results but I have only been about 50/50 going the other way. The only reason I will do what you did now is to look for pressure and the fliers away from the center of the "group" are never where the node is but that does not necessarily mean the "group" is a node. Take it or leave it. I have been there done that. These overbore cartridges most of us shoot have too short of barrel life to messing with methods that do not work or eat too many components and precious barrel life.

 

[Mikecr]

Did you test seating somewhere along the way to identify best?

 

[LambornLR]

I will be the outlier here. I see ZERO valuable data from shooting the way you did at 100 yards. To do a ladder you need to have enough distance to make the es of the load separate the good from the bad. If shooting at 100 yards you should do an OCW test but I have found certain rifles/cartridges do the same as above and you can not find which is the node so in those cases I still ended up doing a real ladder at 500 plus yards. In my experience finding the load the way you are is just dumb luck especially when you go farther out and change temp or altitude. Obviously I can not tell others what to do. It is your decision. Just do not be surprised when the rifle will not repeat or flat out won't group. I have tried every load development method on the net and the most repeatable is a true ladder shot at 800-1000 yards period. I have taken known great loads and done what your pics depict and they will typically have those results but I have only been about 50/50 going the other way. The only reason I will do what you did now is to look for pressure and the fliers away from the center of the "group" are never where the node is but that does not necessarily mean the "group" is a node. Take it or leave it. I have been there done that. These overbore cartridges most of us shoot have too short of barrel life to messing with methods that do not work or eat too many components and precious barrel life.

I wouldn't go as far as saying there is "ZERO valuable data" from developing a load this way. Most of the time it works well for me. I do appreciate your feedback. I would also agree that testing ladders at longer ranges--500 yards plus--is a better way to go, but due to time and range availability, sometimes you just have to work with what you got.

My overarching point is this: when I'm testing the rifles I have built, my goal is to see if they will easily shoot sub 0.5 MOA. I'm not trying to develop the perfect load for them. I'll let the owner do that. The reason I went down the rabbit hole with the CA barrels is because I couldn't get them to shoot. I expected much better performance for a $600 barrel, and I was just curious if other folks with CA barrels were getting good performance. I have heard a lot of varying opinions about them, and I wanted to see what people on this forum had to say.

 

[Mikecr]

Who chambered the barrels?
Are they chambered exactly per your reference of better shooting barrels?

 

[IdahoCTD]

I have chambered 2 but only really shot one. It's a 300wm. Here are the 9th through 11th rounds through it at 790yds. I use Peterson brass and loaded 75, 76, 76.5, and 77grs of H1000 and 215 Bergers. 5 rounds each. Got it dialed with a couple 75gr loads and shot 3 shot groups with 75 and 76. Then stretched it to 790yds. I hit low with one of the 76gr loads and dialed it up to shoot the group in the picture. I shot the last 2 at 946yds and they were about 1/2" apart.