codym
WKR
No I weighed it but didn’t right it down. That setup as pictured with a modded triple pull was 12 pounds on the button.Any idea what the barrel weight came out to?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No I weighed it but didn’t right it down. That setup as pictured with a modded triple pull was 12 pounds on the button.Any idea what the barrel weight came out to?
The recoil on that big super manly WW1 30 cal probably dictates how much zoom a guy can get away with without losing sight picture. I think for most lady shooters like myself, 14-18X zoom is the sweet spot.I'm not winning any matches, and I shoot matches with a .30-06, granted, but I've never gone above 10x in an NRL match. I cannot imagine any scenario where I would even think about going to 30x+.
Even if I were shooting a lady gun in 6.5 I'd never want to go past 15x
As I mentioned, you have to go way down in contour with a steel barrel, which affects heat dissipation.What's not feasible? If a carbon barrel and a steel barrel weigh the same, why is the balance any different other than the obvious possible differences on how that weight is carried across the length of the barrel?
I'm also specifically speaking about using an ACC for NRL-Hunter. My partner in shooting the Teams division used an ACC with Stiller action, #3 Benchmark, and LRHS 3-12x scope, and balance was certainly sub-optimal. He was a few ounces under 16 lbs. I wanted to use a 26" M24 steel barrel on my setup, but it wasn't even close to making weight.As I mentioned, you have to go way down in contour with a steel barrel, which affects heat dissipation.
Weight distribution is a thing, too, as you said, but it's likely pretty minor.
As I mentioned, you have to go way down in contour with a steel barrel, which affects heat dissipation.
Weight distribution is a thing, too, as you said, but it's likely pretty minor.
I'm also specifically speaking about using an ACC for NRL-Hunter. My partner in shooting the Teams division used an ACC with Stiller action, #3 Benchmark, and LRHS 3-12x scope, and balance was certainly sub-optimal. He was a few ounces under 16 lbs. I wanted to use a 26" M24 steel barrel on my setup, but it wasn't even close to making weight.
The recoil on that big super manly WW1 30 cal probably dictates how much zoom a guy can get away with without losing sight picture. I think for most lady shooters like myself, 14-18X zoom is the sweet spot.
It's got a much larger surface area, so I'd bet that it is. A CF barrel of similar contour would be much worse, for sure.Well its not like a carbon of similar weight is going to be any better at dissipating heat.
Sorry, I misremembered. I also had almost a pound of internal weights in the ACC to help with balance, since I had the weight budget. Yes, if I took out those weights I could get away with another pound in barrel weight, bumping the barrel weight budget to about 5 lbs.How did it get so heavy, Triple pull? The g2 ass end could get some weight out of there. There's a 12# rifle in this thread with triple pull, ZCo, and fluted rem varmint tube. Surely the XLR element isn't 4# lighter than an ACC.
Larger surface area of a worse conductor if i'm not mistaken. The tests ive seen of temp increase/decrease rate of carbon vs steel of a similar weight weren't conclusive or significantly different IIRC. I just dont buy that carbon is a better alternative based on performance at any normal sporter contour weight and above.It's got a much larger surface area, so I'd bet that it is. A CF barrel of similar contour would be much worse, for sure.
Sorry, I misremembered. I also had almost a pound of internal weights in the ACC to help with balance, since I had the weight budget. Yes, if I took out those weights I could get away with another pound in barrel weight, bumping the barrel weight budget to about 5 lbs.
Tenacity with rail and pins: 31.875 oz
ACC Gen 1 w/o weights or attachments: 84.75 oz
2 internal ACC weights: 15.25 oz
TT Special: 1.75 oz
IBI CF Hunter 22" in 6.5 CM: 46 oz
Maven RS1.2 with AAD caps and Burris XTR Sig rings: 34.5 oz
Heathen G2 4-port and tuner: 7.25 oz
Ckye pod single pull: 21.75 oz
Burris scope level: 1.375 oz
Total: 15 lbs 3 oz
You're correct, but it's difficult to test since what actually matters is the temp of the surface steel in the bore. The rest of the barrel steel/CF simply acts to conduct and disperse heat away from the bore. Given that steel and CF barrels have very different contours at like weight, it's difficult to determine how the two compare at dispersing heat from the internal bore surface area. It's certainly possible to test this, but I've not seen any tests that do it this way. Most that I've seen compare the temperature at the external surface.Larger surface area of a worse conductor if i'm not mistaken. The tests ive seen of temp increase/decrease rate of carbon vs steel of a similar weight weren't conclusive or significantly different IIRC. I just dont buy that carbon is a better alternative based on performance at any normal sporter contour weight and above.
Alterra arms had one on youtube not too long ago. I think they tested bore temps but its been a while since I watched.You're correct, but it's difficult to test since what actually matters is the temp of the surface steel in the bore. The rest of the barrel steel/CF simply acts to conduct and disperse heat away from the bore. Given that steel and CF barrels have very different contours at like weight, it's difficult to determine how the two compare at dispersing heat from the internal bore surface area. It's certainly possible to test this, but I've not seen any tests that do it this way. Most that I've seen compare the temperature at the external surface.
They tested bore temp and graphed heat dissipation. Shouldn't surprise anyone since the carbon is mostly epoxy and epoxy is an insulator, but the carbon barrels heated up faster, and held heat way longer than steel.Alterra arms had one on youtube not too long ago. I think they tested bore temps but its been a while since I watched.
Not really. Here's the test: https://www.allterraarms.com/carbon-vs-steel-rifle-barrel-test/They tested bore temp and graphed heat dissipation. Shouldn't surprise anyone since the carbon is mostly epoxy and epoxy is an insulator, but the carbon barrels heated up faster, and held heat way longer than steel.
Rate of decrease is a weird sticking point. If it’s hotter at 1 minute and still hotter at 10 minutes it doesn’t really matter if the carbon cooled down by a higher percentage over that time period.Not really. Here's the test: https://www.allterraarms.com/carbon-vs-steel-rifle-barrel-test/
As a disclaimer, I'm not a CF barrel proponent. Having said that, I would challenge some of the conclusions they draw, as well as the methodology of the test. First, nowhere do they say how they controlled the initial heat transfer to the bore in terms of ammo consistency, time between shots fired, time between the last shot and getting the probe into the bore, etc. Second, in the 1-shot test they call a 4 deg F difference insignificant, while in the subsequent tests they draw conclusions based on differences of ~5 deg F. Lastly, there is a clear trend in all their plots that CF barrels did, indeed, dissipate heat faster. Over longer shot strings, the CF barrels initially rose to higher internal temps, but then their internal temp decreased faster than that of the steel barrels.
I agree with you that the absolute temperature is what actually matters. I'm pointing out that the CF barrels actually did dissipate heat faster.Rate of decrease is a weird sticking point. If it’s hotter at 1 minute and still hotter at 10 minutes it doesn’t really matter if the carbon cooled down by a higher percentage over that time period.
I'll also point out that in this test they used deeply fluted steel barrels of similar contour to the CF barrels. My original point was that a steel barrel of similar weight to a CF barrel would have a smaller contour.Alterra arms had one on youtube not too long ago. I think they tested bore temps but its been a while since I watched.
I'll also point out that in this test they used deeply fluted steel barrels of similar contour to the CF barrels. My original point was that a steel barrel of similar weight to a CF barrel would have a smaller contour.
Using fluting on the steel barrels, as they did in this test, introduces a new variable that is not controlled (one style of barrel uses fluting, while the other does not). What if you were to flute the CF barrels for an apples-to-apples comparison? Again, I'm not advocating for one barrel material over another, but as a physicist myself, scientific rigor is important to me when considering testing results, conclusions, and data.