-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
New barrel maker with new technology
- Thread starter Jeff In TX
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
257speed
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
JR,
There are bolt actions being designed and built with incredible tolerances that wouldn't be possible with traditional machining equipment.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to nit-pick, but CNC does not do anything more accurately than the "old style" manual machines, they just do them much faster. Time not being a factor, you could build an action with just as tight of tolerances, using a good old lathe and manual mill.
Jerry
JR,
There are bolt actions being designed and built with incredible tolerances that wouldn't be possible with traditional machining equipment.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to nit-pick, but CNC does not do anything more accurately than the "old style" manual machines, they just do them much faster. Time not being a factor, you could build an action with just as tight of tolerances, using a good old lathe and manual mill.
Jerry
I agree with Jerry on that point.
My father was an INCREDIBLE machinist. Especially on that big goddamn 3 phase Bridgeport Mill he put in our garage when I was a teenager. He was no slouch on a lathe either!
However, as he discovered the hard way, those skills are rapidly becoming specialty, boutique skills. There isn't enough market for men like him anymore, and the skillset is dissapearing. CNC can do anything even the best of machinists can, and do it faster, with one exception:
It takes quite awhile to draw up a program for a complex, one off custom job. Given a proper drawing, my father could just spark up the old mill and start carving. By the time the CNC instructions were written, the finished product was ready!
However, for repeat jobs, if three or more peices are going to be made, CNC can do the job as well as even the best human hand, and will crank out peices faster by a lot.
Now, instead of the skilled machinist, the machine needs a babysitter to make sure the tooling is changed when needed, kep sharp, the lubricant resivoir is full, and everything just keeps going like its supposed to. Babysitters are cheaper to pay than machinists by a lot.
I'll probably catch a lot of flack for those comments, but I'm not entirely sure I care. Having seen a real old school machinist at work, I have a jaded view of CNC operators, who basically forced good men like my father into working for less than half of what thier skills should be worth only because these "operators" are willing to take that low of a payscale.
Not to knock the technology, and I mean no disrespect to anyone individually. Just expressing regret that this is, all too often the price of "progress"
My father was an INCREDIBLE machinist. Especially on that big goddamn 3 phase Bridgeport Mill he put in our garage when I was a teenager. He was no slouch on a lathe either!
However, as he discovered the hard way, those skills are rapidly becoming specialty, boutique skills. There isn't enough market for men like him anymore, and the skillset is dissapearing. CNC can do anything even the best of machinists can, and do it faster, with one exception:
It takes quite awhile to draw up a program for a complex, one off custom job. Given a proper drawing, my father could just spark up the old mill and start carving. By the time the CNC instructions were written, the finished product was ready!
However, for repeat jobs, if three or more peices are going to be made, CNC can do the job as well as even the best human hand, and will crank out peices faster by a lot.
Now, instead of the skilled machinist, the machine needs a babysitter to make sure the tooling is changed when needed, kep sharp, the lubricant resivoir is full, and everything just keeps going like its supposed to. Babysitters are cheaper to pay than machinists by a lot.
I'll probably catch a lot of flack for those comments, but I'm not entirely sure I care. Having seen a real old school machinist at work, I have a jaded view of CNC operators, who basically forced good men like my father into working for less than half of what thier skills should be worth only because these "operators" are willing to take that low of a payscale.
Not to knock the technology, and I mean no disrespect to anyone individually. Just expressing regret that this is, all too often the price of "progress"
James Jones
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2002
- Messages
- 2,854
I work for Lockheed Martin at a NASA plant that builds the ET for the shuttle , we have some of the finest tools in the world some of which are the only one made to include a 40 million dollar 10 axis CNC mill thats accurate to .000002". Most of the parts are cut on CNC tool and some of the machienest that run them had degrees in computer programing and others have 30 years runing a manual tool and in short the schooled boys are always asking for help from the older manual guys because the CNC does need a babysitter and the machining "theory" is the same no mater if you using a file or EDM.
And alot of the parts that are made are made my a manual tool and a guy running it by feel,sound and site ,things that a cnc can't do.
Their will alsys need to be the good old boy with fine little cuts all over his hands and oil permantly stained their , thank the good lord
And alot of the parts that are made are made my a manual tool and a guy running it by feel,sound and site ,things that a cnc can't do.
Their will alsys need to be the good old boy with fine little cuts all over his hands and oil permantly stained their , thank the good lord
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
Was this some sort of advertisement for Bartlein? They cutting you a break on price?
They might make barrels as good as others but come on..
What is this innovation their on the edge of?
Are they gonna make us more accurate barrels, or that last longer. Or was the ability to type twist into a machine to 3 places the innovation your referring too? And 'most uniform' is bragged by all.. Lapped. Yeah, there all lapped.. They all claim no breakin needed...Any used in BR, eventually win something..
Give us some difference to warrant this advertisement.
They might make barrels as good as others but come on..
What is this innovation their on the edge of?
Are they gonna make us more accurate barrels, or that last longer. Or was the ability to type twist into a machine to 3 places the innovation your referring too? And 'most uniform' is bragged by all.. Lapped. Yeah, there all lapped.. They all claim no breakin needed...Any used in BR, eventually win something..
Give us some difference to warrant this advertisement.
royinidaho
Well-Known Member
I recall fellas like De Vinci that commanded big bucks and were never out of work and lived long lives who never knew what a paint by the number or a computer program was.
Its the sight of the eye, the touch of the finger and the desires of the heart (I guess it was bowels in those days)plus the vision that created the Master's Touch.
The great ones are few and far between. I'm happy to have known at least one.
BTW: Sinclair's 07 Cat. has 'em.
Its the sight of the eye, the touch of the finger and the desires of the heart (I guess it was bowels in those days)plus the vision that created the Master's Touch.
The great ones are few and far between. I'm happy to have known at least one.
BTW: Sinclair's 07 Cat. has 'em.
Jeff In TX
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Was this some sort of advertisement for Bartlein? They cutting you a break on price?
They might make barrels as good as others but come on..
What is this innovation their on the edge of?
Are they gonna make us more accurate barrels, or that last longer. Or was the ability to type twist into a machine to 3 places the innovation your referring too? And 'most uniform' is bragged by all.. Lapped. Yeah, there all lapped.. They all claim no breakin needed...Any used in BR, eventually win something..
Give us some difference to warrant this advertisement.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mikecr,
Nope, not an advertisement of any kind! As I stated from the barrel breakin post, I believe it was Dzaw that posted about the ultimate barrel and new technologies. I continued that topic on this new thread with the information I had recently learned.
I had already had my g-smith order the new Bartlein barrel after hearing about them through my smith and talking first hand with them on the phone. I liked what I heard and I liked the fact they were new and they had new state of the art equipment. I'm not a machinist but I know what the newer CNC machines are capable of. For the traditionalist machinist I meant no disrespect. I also have no ties with the company other than I ordered a barrel.
I engineer and build network protocol analyzers. The analyzers of the past can get still get the job done…to a point, but they are slow, cumbersome and difficult to use. The user usually needs to be an engineer to interrupt the results and work with one. When they were designed they were state of the art.
Our new analyzers are lighting fast, easy to use and designed so that you don't have to be an engineer to use them or interrupt your results. Now in ten years I may think differently, but to today's standard, they don't get much better.
My thought process was much the same about machining processes and the newer CNC machines whether that was right or wrong. If CNC equipment wasn't inherently better, faster and/or more productive, why design and build it.
As for being more accurate…I hope so, time will tell. As for extended barrel life, unless someone figures out how to protect the throat better, that won't happen. On that subject, I thought if someone could integrate a ceramic section seamlessly into the throat area we might be on to something.
I don't shoot bench rest, just tactical competitions and long range hunting and shooting, so I can't answer the bench rest winning questions.
Seems as though I climbed under your skin with this thread. If you're a site moderator and view this as an advertisement which is isn't delete the thread. It wasn't meant as an advertisement of any kind. If it appears to you as an advertisement you're incorrect. If you don't like it big [censored], ignore it and move on. It wasn't directed at you or to be disrespectful to you or any traditional machinist. Just letting the other board members know about new barrel builders using newer or what I perceived to be newer and better technology and equipment.
When another board member mentions a new or existing manufacture of any kind, do you view their posts as advertisements?
That's it; I'm done justifying my thread. I'm not going to let this turn into a ****ing match, because of how you view it. Again if you're a site moderator or the others view it as and advertisement pull the thread. A lot of good useful information has been past on, whether you think so or not.
Was this some sort of advertisement for Bartlein? They cutting you a break on price?
They might make barrels as good as others but come on..
What is this innovation their on the edge of?
Are they gonna make us more accurate barrels, or that last longer. Or was the ability to type twist into a machine to 3 places the innovation your referring too? And 'most uniform' is bragged by all.. Lapped. Yeah, there all lapped.. They all claim no breakin needed...Any used in BR, eventually win something..
Give us some difference to warrant this advertisement.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mikecr,
Nope, not an advertisement of any kind! As I stated from the barrel breakin post, I believe it was Dzaw that posted about the ultimate barrel and new technologies. I continued that topic on this new thread with the information I had recently learned.
I had already had my g-smith order the new Bartlein barrel after hearing about them through my smith and talking first hand with them on the phone. I liked what I heard and I liked the fact they were new and they had new state of the art equipment. I'm not a machinist but I know what the newer CNC machines are capable of. For the traditionalist machinist I meant no disrespect. I also have no ties with the company other than I ordered a barrel.
I engineer and build network protocol analyzers. The analyzers of the past can get still get the job done…to a point, but they are slow, cumbersome and difficult to use. The user usually needs to be an engineer to interrupt the results and work with one. When they were designed they were state of the art.
Our new analyzers are lighting fast, easy to use and designed so that you don't have to be an engineer to use them or interrupt your results. Now in ten years I may think differently, but to today's standard, they don't get much better.
My thought process was much the same about machining processes and the newer CNC machines whether that was right or wrong. If CNC equipment wasn't inherently better, faster and/or more productive, why design and build it.
As for being more accurate…I hope so, time will tell. As for extended barrel life, unless someone figures out how to protect the throat better, that won't happen. On that subject, I thought if someone could integrate a ceramic section seamlessly into the throat area we might be on to something.
I don't shoot bench rest, just tactical competitions and long range hunting and shooting, so I can't answer the bench rest winning questions.
Seems as though I climbed under your skin with this thread. If you're a site moderator and view this as an advertisement which is isn't delete the thread. It wasn't meant as an advertisement of any kind. If it appears to you as an advertisement you're incorrect. If you don't like it big [censored], ignore it and move on. It wasn't directed at you or to be disrespectful to you or any traditional machinist. Just letting the other board members know about new barrel builders using newer or what I perceived to be newer and better technology and equipment.
When another board member mentions a new or existing manufacture of any kind, do you view their posts as advertisements?
That's it; I'm done justifying my thread. I'm not going to let this turn into a ****ing match, because of how you view it. Again if you're a site moderator or the others view it as and advertisement pull the thread. A lot of good useful information has been past on, whether you think so or not.
I've been on the horn with Bartlein. I can't say anything one way or another about accuracy yet, but I can say that their new machines are quite versatile.
As I mentioned in another thread, they're willing ti tackle the idea of cutting polygon rifling. This thought was quite abhorrant to some other (who will remain nameless) cut barrle maker, as his machine (or maybe just his will to get involved in the tooling and processes necessary) was less than up to the task.
Ironically enough, during my conversation with Scott DeVanna (a top metallurgist at Crucible Steel) he brought up Bartlein barrels on his own, saying that he had heard a lot about their new machining and thought that there was a lot of promise for honest advances there.
I'm going to try and contact Bartlein again and see if they might be willing to offer 174-SXR as an upgrade option. While it is harder and more wearing on tools, the cost to pay for their tooling seemed rather reasonable, and even coupled with the incresed cost of the material, you're only looking at probably a $100 to $150 increase in the price of the final product while still protecting their bottom line.
As far as protecting the throat area... Plasma Nitriding should be able to do exactly that with some very promising results. This process is used in hot work tool steels to protect them from more heat checking and carburizing than our barrels will ever see, and it's quite effective! The plasma process doesn't roughen the surface like other methods of nitriding, and if this area is made slightly under diameter, it can still be polished to s proper mirror sheen afterwards.
I am waiting on a callback from northeast coatings to talk about plasma nitriding. Their literature indicates 17-4 type steels will take the treatment well, but I want to be sure they're set up to do the inner diameter of a long tube.
If not, I do know that there are a couple of others who are set up for this, it's just a matter of finding a good company with a reputation of precise work.
As I mentioned in another thread, they're willing ti tackle the idea of cutting polygon rifling. This thought was quite abhorrant to some other (who will remain nameless) cut barrle maker, as his machine (or maybe just his will to get involved in the tooling and processes necessary) was less than up to the task.
Ironically enough, during my conversation with Scott DeVanna (a top metallurgist at Crucible Steel) he brought up Bartlein barrels on his own, saying that he had heard a lot about their new machining and thought that there was a lot of promise for honest advances there.
I'm going to try and contact Bartlein again and see if they might be willing to offer 174-SXR as an upgrade option. While it is harder and more wearing on tools, the cost to pay for their tooling seemed rather reasonable, and even coupled with the incresed cost of the material, you're only looking at probably a $100 to $150 increase in the price of the final product while still protecting their bottom line.
As far as protecting the throat area... Plasma Nitriding should be able to do exactly that with some very promising results. This process is used in hot work tool steels to protect them from more heat checking and carburizing than our barrels will ever see, and it's quite effective! The plasma process doesn't roughen the surface like other methods of nitriding, and if this area is made slightly under diameter, it can still be polished to s proper mirror sheen afterwards.
I am waiting on a callback from northeast coatings to talk about plasma nitriding. Their literature indicates 17-4 type steels will take the treatment well, but I want to be sure they're set up to do the inner diameter of a long tube.
If not, I do know that there are a couple of others who are set up for this, it's just a matter of finding a good company with a reputation of precise work.
Mikecr
Well-Known Member
It's just discussion for me as well. My points..
And I'll say, they really should cut you a break on price.
And I'll say, they really should cut you a break on price.
Jeff In TX
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
As far as protecting the throat area... Plasma Nitriding should be able to do exactly that with some very promising results. This process is used in hot work tool steels to protect them from more heat checking and carburizing than our barrels will ever see, and it's quite effective! The plasma process doesn't roughen the surface like other methods of nitriding, and if this area is made slightly under diameter, it can still be polished to s proper mirror sheen afterwards.
I am waiting on a callback from northeast coatings to talk about plasma nitriding. Their literature indicates 17-4 type steels will take the treatment well, but I want to be sure they're set up to do the inner diameter of a long tube.
If not, I do know that there are a couple of others who are set up for this, it's just a matter of finding a good company with a reputation of precise work.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've never heard of plasma nitriding, and wonder why some of the bigger name barrel makers haven't tried it or offered it in the past. Other than it would cut down on them selling more barrels, but on the flip side it could be a huge competitive advantage for them.
It wouldn't surprise me if one of the new barrel makers won't give it a try. Especially if they can make it cost effective enough to lower their COGs and still offer their barrels at a resemble price or up-charge for this process as an option.
Interesting and good information to say the least.
As far as protecting the throat area... Plasma Nitriding should be able to do exactly that with some very promising results. This process is used in hot work tool steels to protect them from more heat checking and carburizing than our barrels will ever see, and it's quite effective! The plasma process doesn't roughen the surface like other methods of nitriding, and if this area is made slightly under diameter, it can still be polished to s proper mirror sheen afterwards.
I am waiting on a callback from northeast coatings to talk about plasma nitriding. Their literature indicates 17-4 type steels will take the treatment well, but I want to be sure they're set up to do the inner diameter of a long tube.
If not, I do know that there are a couple of others who are set up for this, it's just a matter of finding a good company with a reputation of precise work.
[/ QUOTE ]
I've never heard of plasma nitriding, and wonder why some of the bigger name barrel makers haven't tried it or offered it in the past. Other than it would cut down on them selling more barrels, but on the flip side it could be a huge competitive advantage for them.
It wouldn't surprise me if one of the new barrel makers won't give it a try. Especially if they can make it cost effective enough to lower their COGs and still offer their barrels at a resemble price or up-charge for this process as an option.
Interesting and good information to say the least.
This technology, while it has been around for awhile, is still in its infancy.
Glock nitrides the raceways on their polymer frame handguns to provide a very hard surface that won't gall, rust, or pit, but that is still tough enough to oput up with the shock and abuse required to make a reliable combat or carry handgun. I think they gas nitride though, it's cheaper.
Plasma nitriding has some significant advantages, but, like all things in life, it requires some sacrifice, being cost.
Also, doing the inside diameter of a long narrow tube presents a unique challenge to the chamber and deposition aparatus design. Some fairly heft engineering is required to get the nitrogen bearing plasma to flow in sufficient quantity down the barrel while at the same time manipulating electromagnetic and thermal conditions to cause an even, precise case to form. I have seen patents on at least three different soloutions to this problem, but weather or not anyone did anything with those patents is something I have yet to actually find out. For what it;s worth, Crucible's metallurgist didn't seem to think it would be a big deal to accomplish, and he thought it was a great idea.
Also, I have no idea weather or not it's a feasible idea cost wise. For all I know, you could have it done, for a minimum investment of $35,000.00. If that's the case, it's a dead end idea.
Glock nitrides the raceways on their polymer frame handguns to provide a very hard surface that won't gall, rust, or pit, but that is still tough enough to oput up with the shock and abuse required to make a reliable combat or carry handgun. I think they gas nitride though, it's cheaper.
Plasma nitriding has some significant advantages, but, like all things in life, it requires some sacrifice, being cost.
Also, doing the inside diameter of a long narrow tube presents a unique challenge to the chamber and deposition aparatus design. Some fairly heft engineering is required to get the nitrogen bearing plasma to flow in sufficient quantity down the barrel while at the same time manipulating electromagnetic and thermal conditions to cause an even, precise case to form. I have seen patents on at least three different soloutions to this problem, but weather or not anyone did anything with those patents is something I have yet to actually find out. For what it;s worth, Crucible's metallurgist didn't seem to think it would be a big deal to accomplish, and he thought it was a great idea.
Also, I have no idea weather or not it's a feasible idea cost wise. For all I know, you could have it done, for a minimum investment of $35,000.00. If that's the case, it's a dead end idea.
JR
Well-Known Member
Raceways aren't as critical to tolerance and inherent safety concerns as grooves in a barrel.
There are that many nitriding processes, it is something have considered.
JR
There are that many nitriding processes, it is something have considered.
JR
Absoloutly true, they aren't as critical. However, nitriding should make the part stronger, and odes not impact the toughness of the substrate, thus the safety concern is at least a null factor. As far as accuracy, that's why I prefer the plasma / ion process over gas or salt bath nitriding. With the other two you get a nitrided case, and a "white layer" of pure nitrides on top of that, changing the final dimension by the thickness of the "white layer". Further, the other processes can roughen the surface, wheras plasma nitriding can be set up not to do so. Not that I would trust the service to leave a perfect finish, I, personally, would suggest re-lapping after nitriding. This has the advantage of polishing up that nice, ultra resistant nitride layer, but the stuff is quite hard, so you won't change the dimensions an appreciable amount either.
When you say there are "that many" nitriding processes, exactly what do you mean? I am not talking about PVD coating with titanium nitride, but rather infusing the case of the substrate with the nitrogen atoms in an ionized plasma. The PVD coating technology has a great deal of promise as well, but I don't think it's ready for gun barrels yet.
When you say there are "that many" nitriding processes, exactly what do you mean? I am not talking about PVD coating with titanium nitride, but rather infusing the case of the substrate with the nitrogen atoms in an ionized plasma. The PVD coating technology has a great deal of promise as well, but I don't think it's ready for gun barrels yet.
JR
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Absoloutly true, they aren't as critical. However, nitriding should make the part stronger, and odes not impact the toughness of the substrate, thus the safety concern is at least a null factor. As far as accuracy, that's why I prefer the plasma / ion process over gas or salt bath nitriding. With the other two you get a nitrided case, and a "white layer" of pure nitrides on top of that, changing the final dimension by the thickness of the "white layer". Further, the other processes can roughen the surface, wheras plasma nitriding can be set up not to do so. Not that I would trust the service to leave a perfect finish, I, personally, would suggest re-lapping after nitriding. This has the advantage of polishing up that nice, ultra resistant nitride layer, but the stuff is quite hard, so you won't change the dimensions an appreciable amount either.
When you say there are "that many" nitriding processes, exactly what do you mean? I am not talking about PVD coating with titanium nitride, but rather infusing the case of the substrate with the nitrogen atoms in an ionized plasma. The PVD coating technology has a great deal of promise as well, but I don't think it's ready for gun barrels yet.
[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly. One thing with lapping the barrel afterwards, I would suggest a process that would involve not having to do a 'final' lap after nitriding. Especially if the chamber and throat had been cut, a nitriding process would most benefit the end result if these areas had been cut and finished beforehand..
JR
Absoloutly true, they aren't as critical. However, nitriding should make the part stronger, and odes not impact the toughness of the substrate, thus the safety concern is at least a null factor. As far as accuracy, that's why I prefer the plasma / ion process over gas or salt bath nitriding. With the other two you get a nitrided case, and a "white layer" of pure nitrides on top of that, changing the final dimension by the thickness of the "white layer". Further, the other processes can roughen the surface, wheras plasma nitriding can be set up not to do so. Not that I would trust the service to leave a perfect finish, I, personally, would suggest re-lapping after nitriding. This has the advantage of polishing up that nice, ultra resistant nitride layer, but the stuff is quite hard, so you won't change the dimensions an appreciable amount either.
When you say there are "that many" nitriding processes, exactly what do you mean? I am not talking about PVD coating with titanium nitride, but rather infusing the case of the substrate with the nitrogen atoms in an ionized plasma. The PVD coating technology has a great deal of promise as well, but I don't think it's ready for gun barrels yet.
[/ QUOTE ]
Possibly. One thing with lapping the barrel afterwards, I would suggest a process that would involve not having to do a 'final' lap after nitriding. Especially if the chamber and throat had been cut, a nitriding process would most benefit the end result if these areas had been cut and finished beforehand..
JR
