Middle ground
- Thread starter analretentive
- Start date
I could be wrong but I believe we have had a couple guns built up with barrel blocks. I cannot recall anything that indicated much. I suspect for IR 50 it would be somewhat tough to keep weight below the 10 1/2 lb marks.
Kent Owens
Well-known member
I built a barrel block RF gun a couple of years ago. It had a 24" long .900 straight SHilen Octagon barrel. It shot very well, but was tricky to tune, and wouldn't make 10.5 lb class. It shot a few 2350's on PSL targets.
I doubt I'd do it again because I saw no advantage.
I doubt I'd do it again because I saw no advantage.
HuskerP7M8
Member
I've experimented with a couple of barrel blocked rifles. The first was with one of two prototypes built by Gene Beggs and Bill Myers with Gene's Ultralight stock and the second was a barrel block in conjunction with an action tuning system I had Jeff Madison build for me. Against his advice btw.
I've also experimented with two of my rail-guns using v-blocks of different lengths and one with either epoxy or Delrin circular bore inserts of various diameters and lengths.
I plan on testing using 4 platforms for the Beggs/Myers project. The Ultralight stock, 2 rail-guns with various mounting systems, and a Terry Leonard Redwood stock bedded by Chad Dixon with a carbon fiber aircraft spar imbedded in it. I just haven't got around to it yet....too many things to test and too little time.
The project with Jeff Madison was a failure, just as he suggested it would be, and we both concluded there was too much flex in the composite stock we used. His system was developed around an aluminum chassis prone rifle which is magnitudes stiffer than conventional wooden and composite stocks.
This thread is now officially off-track. LOL
Landy
I've also experimented with two of my rail-guns using v-blocks of different lengths and one with either epoxy or Delrin circular bore inserts of various diameters and lengths.
I plan on testing using 4 platforms for the Beggs/Myers project. The Ultralight stock, 2 rail-guns with various mounting systems, and a Terry Leonard Redwood stock bedded by Chad Dixon with a carbon fiber aircraft spar imbedded in it. I just haven't got around to it yet....too many things to test and too little time.
The project with Jeff Madison was a failure, just as he suggested it would be, and we both concluded there was too much flex in the composite stock we used. His system was developed around an aluminum chassis prone rifle which is magnitudes stiffer than conventional wooden and composite stocks.
This thread is now officially off-track. LOL
Landy
It may be off track, or maybe it's just finding it's track...
Couple comments:
1. Kind of obvious, but I'll mention it anyway: There is a difference between magic and solving problems. If a rifle has no real problems to start with, a barrel block offers no advantages. No magic. So one question becomes, with a new build, does the use of a block, ceteris paribus, give you better odds of not having problems.
2. It is usually not all or nothing; perfect solution versus abject failure. For example: when I use a block, I also mount the scope on the block. I imagine I have fewer scope problems than most; of course, that's hard to prove. You do know the scope is always pointed where the barrel is pointed, something not certain with receiver-mounted scopes, where the barrel/receiver joint is suspect.
3. The massive blocks you sometimes see aren't needed. I use one when weight allows -- as with a 17-pound 1K rifle, since it makes changing the barrel out easier to use a clamping type block. But my 10.5-pound PPC LV and 13.5-pound .30BR HV use a 3.5-inch long block, glued to the barrel. The only extra meat is at the top, to take the screws for the cantilever for the scope base, and the bottom, to take stock-mounting screws. I don't remember the weight of the blocks now, I'd guess on the order of 6-8 ounces.
But you can make them lighter still, though that gets into designs I've no personal experience with. Scoville made some stocks for the 6PPC where the barrel block was essentially scope rings bedded into the forearm. The Beggs style stock doesn't use a forearm, the front portion of the "stock" (what rides in the front rest) is essentially a 3x6-inch piece of 1/8 aluminum plate mounted to the barrel via one "scope ring."
Anyway, the point isn't to look for magic, but if, as it sounds, bedding a RF with conventional layouts is so tricky only a few who have mastered the craft can do it, it is time to look for solutions where the odds of success are much higher -- where failure becomes the remarkable oddity, not success.
Technically, it should always be about ammo and barrels, until we figure those out. Adding any other layer of "potential problems" just puts you further behind.
BTW, if we ever do figure out how to consistently make great (both accurate and predictable) barrels, and in RF, ever figure out ammo, then success in the sport will move to figuring out conditions. To a large degree, the short-range CF guys have done this by handloading, and at the top level, by having 20-30 barrels to choose from for any match. The harder the competition, the better the barrel you pick.
Couple comments:
1. Kind of obvious, but I'll mention it anyway: There is a difference between magic and solving problems. If a rifle has no real problems to start with, a barrel block offers no advantages. No magic. So one question becomes, with a new build, does the use of a block, ceteris paribus, give you better odds of not having problems.
2. It is usually not all or nothing; perfect solution versus abject failure. For example: when I use a block, I also mount the scope on the block. I imagine I have fewer scope problems than most; of course, that's hard to prove. You do know the scope is always pointed where the barrel is pointed, something not certain with receiver-mounted scopes, where the barrel/receiver joint is suspect.
3. The massive blocks you sometimes see aren't needed. I use one when weight allows -- as with a 17-pound 1K rifle, since it makes changing the barrel out easier to use a clamping type block. But my 10.5-pound PPC LV and 13.5-pound .30BR HV use a 3.5-inch long block, glued to the barrel. The only extra meat is at the top, to take the screws for the cantilever for the scope base, and the bottom, to take stock-mounting screws. I don't remember the weight of the blocks now, I'd guess on the order of 6-8 ounces.
But you can make them lighter still, though that gets into designs I've no personal experience with. Scoville made some stocks for the 6PPC where the barrel block was essentially scope rings bedded into the forearm. The Beggs style stock doesn't use a forearm, the front portion of the "stock" (what rides in the front rest) is essentially a 3x6-inch piece of 1/8 aluminum plate mounted to the barrel via one "scope ring."
Anyway, the point isn't to look for magic, but if, as it sounds, bedding a RF with conventional layouts is so tricky only a few who have mastered the craft can do it, it is time to look for solutions where the odds of success are much higher -- where failure becomes the remarkable oddity, not success.
Technically, it should always be about ammo and barrels, until we figure those out. Adding any other layer of "potential problems" just puts you further behind.
BTW, if we ever do figure out how to consistently make great (both accurate and predictable) barrels, and in RF, ever figure out ammo, then success in the sport will move to figuring out conditions. To a large degree, the short-range CF guys have done this by handloading, and at the top level, by having 20-30 barrels to choose from for any match. The harder the competition, the better the barrel you pick.
Pete Wass
Well-known member
Isn't it pretty much always about the barrels? I have seen plenty of rifles, both CF and RF that were put together by their owners that were as competitive as those made by the Elite Gunsmiths. Not to take anything away from gunsmiths, properly trained gunsmiths possess skills many others don't but there is very little magic bestowed along with their title. Putting together rifles ain't exactly Rocket Science but it does require specific knowledge that can be learned by most people.
I have found it relatively easy to find pretty good ammo, even in this time of hoarding. It's easy to tell the good stuff. Just look at the inventory numbers of the specific lot numbers at the distributors. The good stuff don't last long. The trick is to find the good stuff the big testing groups haven't found yet. The best thing though is to find a barrel that will make much of the ammo look good. It's about the barrels. They, in the end, are less costly that endlessly testing ammo.
This would be, again, one of those Pete things. If you pay particular attention to match reports you'd see how narrow the list of consistently winning builders tends to be. I'd also tend to suspect that if you learned just a little bit about how much proprietary knowledge gets input into them you'd change your mind.
I have come to know, over the last year or so, what I'd consider to be a world class machinist, one in charge of a substantial research facility. This lad is a fast study and has a voracious apatite for learning. On more than a few occasions has he volunteered the fact that he'd never attempt a build capable of winning on his own and how much critical information he's learned from his BR gunsmith not found in books or on Internet forums. It is,by the way, his plan to learn and get there.
That said, I'd be real interested to learn who these accomplished hobbyists might be. I could always use a match winner.
I have come to know, over the last year or so, what I'd consider to be a world class machinist, one in charge of a substantial research facility. This lad is a fast study and has a voracious apatite for learning. On more than a few occasions has he volunteered the fact that he'd never attempt a build capable of winning on his own and how much critical information he's learned from his BR gunsmith not found in books or on Internet forums. It is,by the way, his plan to learn and get there.
That said, I'd be real interested to learn who these accomplished hobbyists might be. I could always use a match winner.
Last edited: