Reply With QuoteThats one big stick of power!
Thats one big stick of power!
Savage 10 FCP-SR 308, 300BO PCS
Looks like some kinda hi-tech crutch....
"As long as there's lead in the air....there's still hope.."
The Borg are here...and we will all be assimilated!
Seriously though, drilling a bunch of holes in a barrel to IMPROVE it's shooting. Who'd of thunk it?!
Paint me a skeptic. I'm an engineer and while this seems very plausible I'm just not entirely sure other than a larger surface(cooling area) that this would result in a 'better' shooting platform. And the added benefit of weight reduction if that is something to worry over.
Does anyone know if there are pictures of these 'holes' in the barrel?
I would love to see some test data on a handful of barrels. Quality of materials I would think paramount to safety also. I would think the 300 Norma mag generates somewhere in the range of 60000psi.
?????
Below should be a link to pdf on bbl thickness and chamber for given steels and pressures.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...VI8WUE3R_v_Y2w
There's so much going on with that rifle that I don't understand. What's all that jazz on and around the scope, for example?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
If I'm reading it properly, all that jazz around the scope is basically an adjustable scope base that'll let you zero the scope at any distance, up until the scope is pointed at the end of the barrel, that is.
Pretty cool ideas, maybe just a gimmick to draw interest, but gosh darn that thing is hideous lol. I'm also interested in how he's explaining that drill holes makes the barrel more stiff?
"A structured barrel in which a series of holes are deep hole drilled down to just in front of the throat. The holes not only reduce weight, but create an inherently stiff structure that resists bending.As one hole goes into a “bend,” one side of the hole is in tension and the other compression. The opposing hole opposite of it is in compression and tension or 180 degrees out of sync, naturally opposing a bending moment by its shape"
I don't really see how this is going to make it all that much better than anything that is currently available, but we shall see huh.
Any relation to Mr Furious??
"An armed society is a polite society"
"...shall not be infringed" What's the confusion?
If he's doing it and it's working on his platform, then what is to question? Now certainly we can't go drilling our barrels and expect it to shoot better...this may or may not only work on the exact setup he's built...too many variables to say with certainty.Originally Posted by RustyShackle
Many old timers would even go as far as adding or removing weight in certain sections, and cutting barrels up to tune them into exactly where they want. I'd bet the holes they drill are also helping in that manner to a certain extent.
Until I see a picture of holes drilled parallel with the bore, I'm saying he's blowing smoke. A task like he explains would be all but impossible to get right. Not only that, but very expensive when there are more feasible ways to achieve the same effect, such as fluting. It is nothing more than millennial marketing hype in hopes to get a government contract....$$$$$$$
"As long as there's lead in the air....there's still hope.."
Well, I'm no structural Engineer ( I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) but I do find myself wondering about those darn holes. They may not be just "holes". He does mention a structured barrel and I'm thinking that the process of making those holes might also work harden the steel around the throat area, perhaps interrupting or channeling shock wave propagation.....or something like that. Anyone else have a competing idea?
Maybe it's just marketing double talk, like muffler bearings going bad and the flummer-agitator creating carbon on the valves. Or maybe he actually IS the little crack-pot in the basement we sometimes read about working furiously at night on the lunatic fringe of advanced science.
If my understanding is correct, these 'holes' (more like shafts) run parallel to the bore.
The idea about one side being in compression and the other in tension in order to stabilize is sound in theory, but there are many factors that need to be taken into consideration, ultimate strength, yield strength, tensile/compression, modulus of elasticity etc etc.
I would think if someone engineered this firearm as much as it appears they have, then they would also take into consideration the limitations of what they were working with. But, as sharpshooter said, there are methods that accomplish the same thing while being significantly easier and cheaper. Might as well make a liquid filled chamber to encompass a barrel to dampen harmonics and provide heat absorption.
If there isn't enough material to properly support the pressures it doesn't matter what the design is. That thing could split like a banana peel. Also the fatigue of multiple firings could show itself down the road.
Is it consistently accurate. Don't care what it looks like. To each his/her own.
Does it shoot.
Life is tuff.....its even tuffer when your stupid
{John Wayne}
There are a couple of statements that don't make sense to me (what's up with that scope?) but this one stands out:
Assuming the holes are drilled blind (no exit in front of the chamber) I fail to see how extra cooling is achieved without airflow. Maybe there is a longer/better explanation somewhere other than a short blog blurb. And what's wrapped around the barrel? Does it insulate/retain heat?We also retain the large diameter which also inherently creates a stiffer structure. All of the surface area of the large diameter and cored holes create significantly more cooling surface than a solid barrel of the same weight allowing a longer shooting period or forced internal cooling.
Either way, we're in an age where there isn't a lot of true innovating taking place, improvements are mostly tweaks to existing systems. Without unbiased data everything boils down to marketing hype doesn't it? I'd like to see data points from the barrel specs over at least a 5k shot cycle. They have obviously put a lot of thought, time, and money into the project and I wish them luck. Maybe the designer will show up here and give more details.
^^This^^... I assumed that they must have an entrance/exit to achieve some flow. But this type of material is always really interesting to me.
I do believe that there is probably a profound number of good ideas floating around in the industry, both amateurs and seasoned veterans alike. The issue is that probably many don't freely share their knowledge and ideas publicly. And who can blame them for not wanting to give possible profitable ideas away?
Sorry, I'm still not buying the idea of the cored holes, I've been around too many deep hole drills to know what is possible and feasible. Besides that, the heat has to go somewhere which means you'd need positive airflow because static dissipation wouldn't work very good in a closed system.
Sounds good in theory, but I'll bet this whole idea originated on a computer screen by a college grad who's never got his hands dirty, and what you see in the picture.......it's just a mock up.
"As long as there's lead in the air....there's still hope.."
The question is: Does it shoot well enough compared to traditional technology to justify the expense? The target picture is, underwhelmingly, a four-shot group at 100 yards. When they tout that the optical system (which I had previously glossed over) "a maximum effective range of 3200yds plus" and the barrel "allow[s] a longer shooting period", I'd expect more sock-knocking results.
I'd have to say I'm not impressed in the least. I can get lucky and shoot a one hole five round group at 100 yards with my stock 11TH .270 with handloads. Consistently is a completely different ball game.
[QUOTE=fgw_in_fla;256183]We told you so...[/QUOTE]
I'd have to see more than 100 yards too. You can get lucky at 100 but flaws are magnified the further you get. After all, who spends all that money to shoot at 100?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
So to sum it up for anyone who reads it after this post, it seems that everyone thinks:
1. It's total BS
2. A pipe dream that some millenial college screen jockey who's never got his hands dirty created to win a defense contract
3. Not possible and just a heat soak nightmare
4. Not sock-knockingly shocking enough results
(if you can't read through my sarcasm then I feel bad for you haha)
haha I think you got it covered there!So to sum it up for anyone who reads it after this post, it seems that everyone thinks:
1. It's total BS
2. A pipe dream that some millenial college screen jockey who's never got his hands dirty created to win a defense contract
3. Not possible and just a heat soak nightmare
4. Not sock-knockingly shocking enough results
(if you can't read through my sarcasm then I feel bad for you haha)
[QUOTE=fgw_in_fla;256183]We told you so...[/QUOTE]
That thing around the scope looks like a protective cage, just in case someone throws the rifle. Looks like someone's R&D project didn't get enough funding...
To each his own. If it shoots, great.
Don't get it actually
I see people shooting smaller groups with a 'normal' rifle than this one at 100 yards
I am really not impressed at all . . .
Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks