HELP!...Who Makes This Rail?

[Tim Oltersdorf]

With a little bit of help from my friends

Butch, I have it on good authority that Glen has had several mentors in his benchrest career. These include, but are not limited to, Pol Pot, Satan, Hugh Heffner, Mother Teresa, Paris Hilton, Timothy Leary, Edward Teller (the "father" of the hydrogen bomb), Ted Nugent and Joe Biden. Glen has managed to distill the advice from all these sources and to process them into his own unique approach to benchrest. Tim

 

[Chism G]

"Mentor"

Glenn,
Would you reveal your Mentor?
Sorry Bud!

Butch...I'll tell ya the next time I get you on the phone. Got in trouble the last time I posted the Name on here. Character assassins are lurking.


Dr Tim sums it up in his own style. The list is long and still growing.



Glenn

 

[markharp]

Walt Berger

I liked the comment about "learning to read the wind" with a rail. Reminded me of the first time I met Walt. I was a total newbie and he had just got done practicing. I got the nerve up to walk up to him and his rail and ask what I am sure were neophyte questions. He was very nice and helpful. One of the first things he said was "nothing teaches you to read the wind like a rail".

 

[jbhotrod]

Ive also been wondering why theres not much discussion of rails on here? IMO rail guns and heavy barrel block rifles are kinda like, respectively, the dragsters and funny cars of the shooting world. I say this because IMO accurate firearms in general go together with fast cars like titties and beer. There are many types of racing competitions, but drag racing cuts out everything else like turning, braking, etc and simply gets down to the nitty gritty of going as fast as possible in a straight line for a 1/4 or 1/8mi and focuses on a very specific narrow range of skills/car`s attributes; mainly power, keeping the car straight, and throttle control. Similarly, there are many types of shooting competitions, but Benchrest cuts out everything involved in competitions like tactical/practical shooting, high power, etc where a large part of the competition is not only marksmanship, but also physical fitness, observational skill, speed of acquiring and connecting with the target, etc. Instead, benchrest simply focuses on getting the most accuracy possible, with the main skill of reading the wind being about the most important. Obviously I left out tuning the rifle/load just like I left out tuning the fuel system(whether injected or carb`d), tuning the chassis/suspension, ignition timing, and anything else you must do to get the car to hook.

Hence, benchrest is to drag racing, as rail guns are to dragsters. Heck, if you think a bit abstractly, in the racing world dragsters are actually sometimes even called "rails" because that is essentially what the chassis is.

Point being, dragsters are the top of the food chain in drag racing. There is absolutely NO other purpose for a dragster, than going down a 1/4 or 1/8mi drag strip. Rail guns are (mostly) the top of the food chain in benchrest, and there is absolutely NO other (practical)purpose for rail gun than BR shooting. So why the silence yall?

Im guessing a lot of(not all) the men/women who run rails and spend the time tuning them simply dont care to, or dont have enough time to, post about them on the net.

 

[alinwa]

Poor Wilbur...sittin' there with nothing but a motel towel and crapped up case necks. Looking at the corner of the towel, it appears that I did wipe 'em off at least once...

Jeeepers guys..... GREAT THREAD but I'm still reeling from the mental image of Wilbur out there in the cold reloading in nothing but a motel towel....and having to wipe with it... SOMEbody significantly upped the ante from quarters.....

 

[Wilbur]

Jeeepers guys..... GREAT THREAD but I'm still reeling from the mental image of Wilbur out there in the cold reloading in nothing but a motel towel....and having to wipe with it... SOMEbody significantly upped the ante from quarters.....

I've had many days that if I could have shot a bit better I woulda gladly had nothing but a motel towel...

 

[jbhotrod]

Hello yall, I realize this is a bit off-topic but I wanted to ask something that is somewhat related to rail guns.

With regards to tension barrel setups, Ive read that most people do it so that the tube butts up against the action and then is also connected to the muzzle via a nut.

But specifically, how does the nut connect the muzzle and the tube? Does anyone have a picture or link because Im having trouble wrapping my head around this? And is the outer tube usually free-floating, or bedded to the stock/rail, or???

Also, would yall say a tension barrel offers more advantages than a decent sized barrel-block(5-8in)?

Thanks.

 

[Fergus Bailey]

With regards to tension barrel setups, Ive read that most people do it so that the tube butts up against the action and then is also connected to the muzzle via a nut.

But specifically, how does the nut connect the muzzle and the tube? Does anyone have a picture or link because Im having trouble wrapping my head around this? And is the outer tube usually free-floating, or bedded to the stock/rail, or???

Basically, its a tube inside a tube. The barrel is threaded at each end (obviously the tenon still screws into the action), with a cap on each thread that bears down and tensions up against the outer tube. Two examples are:

Take a look at the picture in this story: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2013/01/robert-cantrells-australian-benchrest-bulletin/

And, while its not a rail, take a look at the photos of Charles Bailey's rifle on this page: http://www.benchrest.com/1000yds/

 

[jbhotrod]

Basically, its a tube inside a tube. The barrel is threaded at each end (obviously the tenon still screws into the action), with a cap on each thread that bears down and tensions up against the outer tube. Two examples are:

Take a look at the picture in this story: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2013/01/robert-cantrells-australian-benchrest-bulletin/

And, while its not a rail, take a look at the photos of Charles Bailey's rifle on this page: http://www.benchrest.com/1000yds/

Nice, thanks for replying sir.

How tightly does the inside of the tube fit against the outside of the barrel? Are they usually set up where the tube is snug against the barrel, or is it more common and/or better to have some space between the tube and barrel ala a water-cooled tension barrel? And how important is stiffness/diameter of the tube? Just as a guess, it seems one would be able to put more and more tension on the barrel with a thicker/stiffer tube and Id imagine thats an advantage; correct me if Im wrong?

In yall`s experience, does a good running tension-barrel offer more advantages for 600 and especially 1000yd BR than a more traditional barrel-block Heavy Gun?

What is the largest diameter barrel that will still offer more pro`s than con`s in a double cantilevered barrel-block? IE what is the approximate diameter range where going above that will simply cause more headaches than good, in, say a .30 cal barrel?

Also, would you say that a good running tension-barrel rifle has less muzzle movement than a barrel-block assembly of the same weight(weight of barrel+block vs weight of barrel+tube+nuts/flanges, etc.)? Using the same stock/rail/scope/etc on both.

Would it be possible to have a rifle with no, or very minuscule muzzle movement, and the rifle still have the ability to shoot good and have the ability to be tuned? IE is little to no muzzle movement a good thing?

Id wager BRcentral has some of the brightest minds on the internet when it comes to accuracy-related topics.

Thanks for any/all replies yall.
Best regards,
Blake.

 

[Fergus Bailey]

There are a number of interesting questions there, but frankly I think there is a VERY limited pool of people that have the hands-on experience to answer them. And I say that simply because there are very few tensioned barrel rifles used in BR that I am aware of. Of the very few I am aware of, they were made in the early to mid 2000s, or even late 1990s.

This leads me to suspect none of those experimenting with tensioned barrels ever actually saw the results they expected to. Given all the extra work required to tension a barrel, if it did not produce "the goods", then I imagine the projects were abandoned pretty quickly, and the money, time and effort invested in other projects. Though this is just speculation on my part based on empirical evidence.

The various flavors of BR are very unforgiving, and if the results do not show up in the form of winning fake wood, innovations tend to get little support. If you are pursuing this purely for the purpose of expanding your knowledge, them it is probably worthwhile - you are doing it for your own gratification and that's a worthy endeavor in its own right. However if you are going down this line with the intent to build the next match winning rifle, you may be better served by asking what are the match winners actually using. I believe you with find very few using tensioned barrels, despite the theoretical advantages they appear to provide.

 

[Butch Lambert]

Very good post Fergus. If we were shooting for $100,000 prizes we would see more experimental testing and ideas. That being said I believe the guys have done a great job seeking out new ideas.

 

[jbhotrod]

Thanks for replying.

Would yall say that the larger cases are or are not capable of the same consistent groups at 300yd as the small primer cases? For instance, is there any reason that, say a .300 WSM Heavy Gun that is a consistently competitve rifle at 1000yd could not shoot roughly the same size groups as a dedicated 300yd BR rig in 6BR/.30BR/6PPC/etc?

Or if you built two Heavy Guns, both in 50-70 lb. range, with the same stock, same size barrel, etc. but one was in .300 WSM and the other in 6BR/6PPC/.30BR, is there any reason that they wouldnt shoot roughly the same size groups? Assuming both are using highly tuned loads, and disregarding recoil and whether one has a hummer barrel and the other dont.

Just wondering how big of a role case size and/or primer size play in accuracy. And is it due more so to recoil? Or is there something else going on?

Thanks again.

 

[Rob Carnell]

Spot on Fergus

There are a number of interesting questions there, but frankly I think there is a VERY limited pool of people that have the hands-on experience to answer them. And I say that simply because there are very few tensioned barrel rifles used in BR that I am aware of. Of the very few I am aware of, they were made in the early to mid 2000s, or even late 1990s.

This leads me to suspect none of those experimenting with tensioned barrels ever actually saw the results they expected to. Given all the extra work required to tension a barrel, if it did not produce "the goods", then I imagine the projects were abandoned pretty quickly, and the money, time and effort invested in other projects. Though this is just speculation on my part based on empirical evidence.

The various flavors of BR are very unforgiving, and if the results do not show up in the form of winning fake wood, innovations tend to get little support. If you are pursuing this purely for the purpose of expanding your knowledge, them it is probably worthwhile - you are doing it for your own gratification and that's a worthy endeavor in its own right. However if you are going down this line with the intent to build the next match winning rifle, you may be better served by asking what are the match winners actually using. I believe you with find very few using tensioned barrels, despite the theoretical advantages they appear to provide.

The pics Fergus pointed to were of my rail gun. I built 2 of these over the period of 4 years and gave them very exhausting tests. The answer is that I did not win a match in 4 years, even though I was always competitive with my previous rail guns.

So, in desperation, I built a new rail, more conventional in design and won the first match I shot with it. So far, touch wood, I have never failed to make top 10 with this new rail.

My view is that the tensioned barrel concept should work well, but I just could not get the practical results I expected.

Others may have more luck, these are just my findings.

Rob Carnell
Sydney, Australia

 

[jbhotrod]

The pics Fergus pointed to were of my rail gun. I built 2 of these over the period of 4 years and gave them very exhausting tests. The answer is that I did not win a match in 4 years, even though I was always competitive with my previous rail guns.

So, in desperation, I built a new rail, more conventional in design and won the first match I shot with it. So far, touch wood, I have never failed to make top 10 with this new rail.

My view is that the tensioned barrel concept should work well, but I just could not get the practical results I expected.

Others may have more luck, these are just my findings.

Rob Carnell
Sydney, Australia

Thank you for replying sir.

What length and diameter barrel did you use on the more conventional rail gun? Also what chambering did you pick for it? And what diameter is the action that you made?

Do you think there is a point of diminishing returns, with regards to barrel diameter?

And do you feel that little to no muzzle movement is a bad thing? Would you say that could possibly be one of the reasons your tension-barrel rig didnt work out?

What distance/weight class do you compete at with the more conventional rail gun?

Do you feel there is many differences between a rail gun and conventional stock + barrel block rifle?

Also, same thing as above, do you think the small primer cases hold any accuracy advantages at 300yd and out, over the larger cases? Is there any reason that, say a .300 WSM Heavy Gun thats competitive in 1000yd competition could not shoot groups roughly the same size as, and be competitive with, a dedicated 300yd 6BR/.30BR/6PPC/etc BR rig? Disregarding things like recoil, and whether one barrel is better than the other..


Thanks again for any responses.
Blake.

 

[Rob Carnell]

I am no expert

Thank you for replying sir.

What length and diameter barrel did you use on the more conventional rail gun? Also what chambering did you pick for it? And what diameter is the action that you made?

Do you think there is a point of diminishing returns, with regards to barrel diameter?

And do you feel that little to no muzzle movement is a bad thing? Would you say that could possibly be one of the reasons your tension-barrel rig didnt work out?

What distance/weight class do you compete at with the more conventional rail gun?

Do you feel there is many differences between a rail gun and conventional stock + barrel block rifle?

Also, same thing as above, do you think the small primer cases hold any accuracy advantages at 300yd and out, over the larger cases? Is there any reason that, say a .300 WSM Heavy Gun thats competitive in 1000yd competition could not shoot groups roughly the same size as, and be competitive with, a dedicated 300yd 6BR/.30BR/6PPC/etc BR rig? Disregarding things like recoil, and whether one barrel is better than the other..


Thanks again for any responses.
Blake.

Blake,

I am certainly no expert, but I will try and answer your questions.

My new rail uses a 1.25" parallel barrel full length. I would have used 1.5" but I could not get one at the time. The action I made is about 1.6" diameter, but I am not using this at the moment, I am using a Panda. The primary extraction cam needs some work, so I can shoot faster with the Panda. I will do some work on this soon to fix it as I would prefer to shoot mine with all the time I have in it!

I don't know why the tensioned barrel did not work, I wish I did.

I only shoot 100/200 and chambering is 6PPC 270ND. sorry I have never shot larger calibres or distances longer than 300m, so I really cant comment.

I believe that a rail gun has huge advantages over a conventional stock in bags as when you have a condition, you can shoot quicker. But of course, you can still shoot a big group really fast!

Here is a link to some more pics of my tensioned rail.

http://www.benchrestbulletin.net/drupal/sites/bulletin/personalprojects/rail_gun.htm


Rob.