-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
tacom structured barrel
- Thread starter Guan999
- Start date
No direct experience, but there is at least one person who's had one here (do a search).
The physics of it is interesting and I think (IMO) confirmed to be accurate. The novel topology of the barrel is intended to significantly dampen the harmonics of the barrel, making load development pretty much just "find the velocity you want and go from there." I think FEA simulations have supported this, and barrel testing has provided ground truth to compare. And if it's accurate, then why doesn't everyone do it? It's big, expensive and traditional barrels are "good enough."
The physics of it is interesting and I think (IMO) confirmed to be accurate. The novel topology of the barrel is intended to significantly dampen the harmonics of the barrel, making load development pretty much just "find the velocity you want and go from there." I think FEA simulations have supported this, and barrel testing has provided ground truth to compare. And if it's accurate, then why doesn't everyone do it? It's big, expensive and traditional barrels are "good enough."
yea it is quite expensive sitting at 1000$ just for the basic option. that's why i am wondering if it is even worth it paying the extra couple hundred bucks vs a Krieger or Bartlein.
20 page thread here that John Baker from Tacom participated in:
Gunsmithing - Any thoughts on structured barrels?
Saw this today and wondered if the engineers and gunsmiths on SH had any thoughts on the claims made concerning structured barrels in terms of rigidity, whip, and cooling? https://tacomhq.com/structured-barrels/ So I don’t know the folks at this site, and I am not calling them out. Just...
www.snipershide.com
awesome! i'll read up on it20 page thread here that John Baker from Tacom participated in:
Gunsmithing - Any thoughts on structured barrels?
Saw this today and wondered if the engineers and gunsmiths on SH had any thoughts on the claims made concerning structured barrels in terms of rigidity, whip, and cooling? https://tacomhq.com/structured-barrels/ So I don’t know the folks at this site, and I am not calling them out. Just...
I know @Rio Precision Gunworks has used a few of these barrels for clients.
No idea if he's had a chance to shoot/test them or receive feedback on it.
Jacob Bynum at Rifles Only mentioned on one of their podcasts that they were going to test these barrels, but I haven't seen any information on the outcomes of such tests, if they even happened.
No idea if he's had a chance to shoot/test them or receive feedback on it.
Jacob Bynum at Rifles Only mentioned on one of their podcasts that they were going to test these barrels, but I haven't seen any information on the outcomes of such tests, if they even happened.
Haven't put enough rounds through them to say anything with much confidence. Thus far, nothing is jumping out screaming there's a significant advantage over regular barrels.
My structured barrel. Is a Kreiger. Then it is treated at tacom hq. They don’t make barrels at tacom. They just treat them
Data: what source, format etc... will you accept. What is the baseline? Group size, drift, SD stability, range of ammo, range of bullet weight, ladder test...
Do you have the data format used with other barrels? Please share them so that we can recreate them.
How many PRS shooters currently are using Lab Data to choose their barrels? The F-class guys, Bench rest: I want to make sure the data we will collect meets the standards used by the shooters used above.
What lab data do you have that you can share that notes why you choose the barrel to shoot on your guns? That format will be a good structure to review and re-create.
We are about to do some extensive testing- yes a statistician is involved- to make sure we don't fall short: please provide your test parameters.
Our base tests starts at 5 rounds per day, fifth day 5 rounds plus a 25rd group, 20days. Multiple barrels, all systems the same weight.
If you are part of the group who notes "harmonics does not effect accuracy", "heat does not matter" (directly inferred by the first statement)
Sorry for the short tone.
90%+ of the doubters have never shot one. Have you shot our barrels? Who's?
We have several competent shooters who will only shoot our barrels (.22cal to .460)- what data are they not collecting?
What we are not claiming:
To be better than a 3-5shot one hole gun. The vast majority of shooters do not need further performance beyond that performance.
I posted 30 round groups from two different 300Norma platforms.
50 round groups from a 6xc
50round groups AR10 .260rem.
.22cal groups
All to date being noted as not viable- including by yourself.
If 50shooters note the barrel is superior to a their standard barrels-OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE- at what point does the objective evidence become a hypothesis?
Does any of the following matter to a shooter (assuming one hole guns):
Ease of load development
Ladder forgiveness
Reduced gun/chassis movement
Heat
Heat dissipation
Mirage
Reduced SD migration
Continued engagement requirements- unless you are also going to tell me "my guys will only shoot 3 rounds and that's it"- at that point a field engagement is pointless. In fact all of the list is pointless.
What criteria or data do you have that notes a standard barrel is superior to ours in those categories?
Same challenge I have presented to others: come on out to Arkansas - bring what you bring- and outshoot our platforms. Twisted Barrel has an excellent facility for close to ELR or if 400yds is good- my backdoor.
As someone recently noted: "if only a percentage of the claims are true- it is still a gamechanger". We are not making the claims. The people who shoot our barrels do.
You were making wild claims on your website and I see you’re still doing. You already got dragged by the hide for this bullshjt you spew with zero proof.
It’s your job to prove this is better not to rant at me on a forum because YOU have zero data to support going across the entire industry you claim to make a product better than.
YOU have no testing and YOU have no proof. I’m just fine using common sense that what you make isnt revolutionary because no one wants to use them in the highest levels of comp.
What is you test format?
You don't have a test format.
Where is your BASE data?
What data do you want?
Bring FKN gun and let's see your data versus ours.
Because no matter what we show from 3rd party won't be good enough for you- answer the FN question- what is you base data and formats?
Maurygold- read carefully: I did not attack you. I asked questions. Some formatted to you others to other readers.
You have noted many times now we are full of Sh.t- you bring a 300Norma or near equivalent. We shoot a 50rd group. Test barrel heat, velocities, accuracy, SD drift, mirage, multi bullet weights, light gun rules- you beat our gun I'll pay you a $1,000. How is that for hard data? I will pay for your trip.
I know I would love to see a series of top line barrels (Bartlein, Krieger, ect) that are shot (same stocked action) (couple hundred rounds each time) before conversion and after and compare the results at multiple distances. it should be multiples of each caliber .
Fly to me. Dont act like you offered me something when I need to go through all the hoops. You can come down here to prove what you want. I have a 1k yard range but the only metric I care about is hits on target
So- you are a bench rest shooter.
Now we are getting somewhere.
What data is acceptable to you?
I have a 1000yd bench guy... part of our "objective" evidence is from him.
Did he win nationals? The top shooters don’t touch your barrels. Because they offer no benefit. Sorry bud
If YOU want to change the industry and claim a Revolutionary product YOU need to provide the proof. Here you are arguing with me and asking me to fly when you could have just provided us any shred of proof
We have three new actions
Three new chassis.
As identical as can be.
Standard barrels and structured barrels.
All the same weight- solid barrels same weight as structured barrels. Structured barrels size for size is lighter. The smallest diameter we have made to date is 1.01"
Same total weight for the rigs, and held there as the barrels are modified. Target weight will be 21lbs
First up is 6.5mm.
The problem with this is that there is no way to remove the variables from this experiment. You cannot say that an identical un-modified barrel (needs to be multiples (each barrel is a unique entity in terms of performance)) would not perform the same as a modified barrel. I understand the logistical issues with this, but until the results can be normalized there will always be doubts about the worth of the exercise.
Dude-- I was trying to bring this back into a discussion.
I just don't know what your "proof" is.
If its only a national champion- you got me. Though Chris Schmidt was first in ELR- though I understand that does not count. Eley doesn't count, Vudoo, ranked mil shooters... Something says that others who have done well will not measure up to your requirements. However- what are your requirements?
I asked "where" - because I will happily go to you.
If you are asking us to beat a narrow application that has been perfected - hard to do.
Example- if you are shooting a 6mm for 10-15 shots... let's take it to 50 shots.
Not a smart ass comment- we are noting our barrels are more "forgiving" across the board.
Beyond that you are asking me to solve a puzzle that I don't have a starting point for.
You have taken an irrational approach to this. I don't know how to measure up beyond your requirement for "data" which I do not understand.
Dude- if you are explaining…you are losing.
If your barrels out shoot other barrels, just get them in the hands of a few competent shooters and let the bullets do the talking and $ will flow your way.
It really is that simple.
Cussing folks on the Hide is not the way.
You remember all the threads by Garmin on here declaring the Xero Chrono the greatest shooting invention of the decade??? Yeah….i don’t either…but guess what….every serious shooter now has one or is saving pennies to get one.
Just be chill-
Sadly/ happily
I humbly think if you haven’t shot a structured barrel
Then you are either in dunning Kruger or imposter syndrome mode
I have a structured barrel. Made by Kreiger, 1:8 twist, .308, John Mills =gunsmith= blueprinted “dummy round” for the chambering
I am very very happy
The rifle is very pleasant to shoot and any and all that have shot it. Love it. Why?
Because it smacks targets all day out to 1476 yards ( setting up for a mile (1776 yards instead of 1760 yards…. (Think July 4th)yards) tomorrow )
It is fun to shoot
Shooting is fun
I went into the process of buying a structured barrel as an adventure and comparison to other barrels I have …. Namely Shilen, and Bartlein. They are in fact all good
But there is a very different feeling shooting the structured barrel
I am finding the tacomhq barrel more fun to shoot
That’s the name of the game
For me
No ego
No id
Just fun
Later
I humbly think if you haven’t shot a structured barrel
Then you are either in dunning Kruger or imposter syndrome mode
I have a structured barrel. Made by Kreiger, 1:8 twist, .308, John Mills =gunsmith= blueprinted “dummy round” for the chambering
I am very very happy
The rifle is very pleasant to shoot and any and all that have shot it. Love it. Why?
Because it smacks targets all day out to 1476 yards ( setting up for a mile (1776 yards instead of 1760 yards…. (Think July 4th)yards) tomorrow )
It is fun to shoot
Shooting is fun
I went into the process of buying a structured barrel as an adventure and comparison to other barrels I have …. Namely Shilen, and Bartlein. They are in fact all good
But there is a very different feeling shooting the structured barrel
I am finding the tacomhq barrel more fun to shoot
That’s the name of the game
For me
No ego
No id
Just fun
Later
You are right sir.
If you have followed the other forum I have been called "snake oil salesman and liar" more times than I can count.
This is the first (not excusable) time I swung back.
At some point I find it incredible to be called those things by people who have never shot, loaded for, scored with one of our barrels. Many crossed the borderline of liable and tort issues arise.
I get how frustrating this must all be
But I like my rifle with my structured barrel
So I don’t care what others say
Attachments
Well I have stacks of cut rifled barrels from Bartlein, Krieger, Mullerworks, Rock Creek, Hawk Hill in many popular calibers and years and years if data on the server of targets from lots of different powders, and bullets.
I've done TONS of barrel tests and reviews on here for many many years from an impartial point of view.
I let the data speak for itself.
If you want to send a barrel, I'd be more than glad to test it in my test rig for
1. Pure accuracy
2. Consistency
3. Ease of load development
4. Accuracy across various popular bullets and powders
Throwing it out there if you want me to out one through its paces and see what comes out the other side.
I've done TONS of barrel tests and reviews on here for many many years from an impartial point of view.
I let the data speak for itself.
If you want to send a barrel, I'd be more than glad to test it in my test rig for
1. Pure accuracy
2. Consistency
3. Ease of load development
4. Accuracy across various popular bullets and powders
Throwing it out there if you want me to out one through its paces and see what comes out the other side.
Reality is that this is all that matters! Do these have about the same life span as a non-structured barrel? Who makes the blank? I think that if I were a big time competition shooter (which I am not) this might be an issue depending on what caliber I am shooting (burn through too many a year). For most of us not an issue though. Enjoy
All agreed.
Truth be told if it is expected for our barrel to outshoot a current 6mm 1000yd bencher- nope. A well understood, optimized, historical component that would take 1000's of rounds to pull out an improvement.
Do we have a 1000yd bencher who notes that the barrel is more responsive and to the expectation, less unknown "fliers", yes... getting his record from last year. The gun was several pounds under light class (barrel was lighter) but one of the few to hit a sub group record. Recently dropped a 9rd group in 2.524". He was crying LOL that the first round was pulled high.
F -Class- same piece. Well known tech. Won a couple of matches, barrel was 30% lighter- nope did not shoot it again (don't know why). I asked about the load development- none. He did note he had the best cold bore group he has ever shot a structured barrel.
Any of this data... NO.
If you only shoot a particular sport under strict conditions at some point optimization has occurred with little room for improvement.
However- breaking down the claims- most by 3rd party:
Stiffer- are tubes per the same weight stronger than a solid? Mechanics and Physics.
Heat- increasing surface area 300- 500% will cool faster. Physics. R=t/k.
Does heat effect accuracy?
Does heat effect barrel life?
Does heat effect SD?
Does heat effect group migration?
NOTE: if harmonics and heat do not matter... why isn't everyone shooting a heavy chassis pencil barrel.
NOTE: why do SF groups stop truing at 7-10rds typically? While we are still well on target at 15-20-30rds.
Mirage- at what point does mirage matter?
Velocity- big subject. However- if a bullet does not spend energy to straighten a sinosoidal event that energy will transfer into what?
- Before you say "I would be surprised if barrel whip would have a 1fps effect on the bullet": machine cutters, buffeting air wings, bullet precession, a simple hoola hoop.
Bullet precession- if the bullet is quieter leaving the barrel ... what will that equate too? (Something we do have data on).
Recoil- ability to stay on target for rapid follow up. At SHOT (in front of 30+ people of high level professional occupations) we had a shooter put four rounds into the air (480yds) before the first one landed. All four impacted the target. Not a bench rest requirement, PRS etc.. but in an engagement? Our 300Norma MRAD was in a 50shot string when they went to 2078yds with a first round (followed by two more) impact. As a field person that first round is critical. Even ELR shooters with .416 and .460's note the ability to see their shots and or have the reticle settle back onto target. Oddly I did not think any advantages would show up in the .22cal arena and actually talked people out of .223cal barrels. I guess I was wrong- even they note a recoil difference (along with accuracy).
To a bench rest type comp many of these things just do not matter and again 1000's of rounds would be needed to pull the data out.
However: ELR. Many shooters adjust velocities and holds as the round count rises. If a Structured Barrel has no advantages why is it that the users do not have to compensate? ELR is a bunch of powder, a bunch of bullet, at velocities pushes the envelopes.
Why is the barrel cool enough to pick up the gun by the barrel once the string is done? A goofy point... back to the overall heat question.
Next "however": Semi Auto's. We just ran a 6.5CM into the 120rd plus reqion before it was determined to cool it- barrel could not be held by hand. Dump two mags and hold the barrel/gas block to their cheek. Our 30rd groups are still well under a quarter in size at rounds 26-30.
As a semi auto application the abuse is much higher. Oddly- I stopped at 30rds. Why- because if anyone challenged us I would have jumped to 60rds. Our Norma at 30rds- I would have jumped to 50rds.
We will be running AR10 and AR15's in the test.
While it is noted "our claims with no data": Physics is in our corner. Vibration and heat are our two most effected components.
Interestingly while it is not "data": one of the people who uses our barrels was in one of the worst firefights in recent history. Noted: "I wouldn't want to be in the field without this barrel on my gun". Objective evidence-YES- with the weight of a Naval Anchor. He is also anal meticulous during his reloading and records every single shot down the barrel.
Didn't Chase Stroud do a video on these? (of course I can't find it)
IIRC he did a powder ladder and they basically all went into the same group
I can see the F-class/ BR guys staying away from them since the advantage seems to be small, plus the added cost/ wait time for guys who burn out several barrels a year.
IIRC he did a powder ladder and they basically all went into the same group
I can see the F-class/ BR guys staying away from them since the advantage seems to be small, plus the added cost/ wait time for guys who burn out several barrels a year.
You got that right! Never shot F class but Bench Rest will chase ANYTHING to improve their score!
Most cases longer life spans. We have three 300Normas well north of 2krounds.
Of course most any material can be destroyed by heat.
Interestingly I listened to a mil guy who was at a recent match in which the stage was unlimited round count per a given time value. They melted the CF barrel down- dripping. We are well into next generation materials that we project a 4x if not higher life and we are pursuing 10x.
Blanks- most anybody.
I am in the field- engaged- how long do I have to change out a barrel?
I am in the field- a new drop of ammo has been issued-- how well will your barrel shoot it? We have a mil PRS guy who does not change is 100yd zero using mil ammo or handloads. Just changes the Kestrel.
What is the proof you are looking for?
What club do you shoot in?
If National Championships are your standard- I assume you are the National Champion.
I asked for your location- I will fly to you.
I will try to not get in the weeds: this is a hostile crowd.
Structural Rigidity:
1) Is a tube stronger weight for weight than a solid: YES.
2) Tubes when bent create tension and compression: we have multiple tubes with opposite side tubes acting in force 180deg from the other side.
3) The shape has been modeled in two different analysis programs (one used in aircraft structure analysis). They both show our shape is stronger than standard barrels by several (tens) percentage points.
4) The shapes of our barrel direct the wave front.
IF you believe harmonics do not effect accuracy- this is a moot point.
For those noting this does not work- please provide your analysis why it is wrong both for shape and harmonics.
If shapes did not matter - I- beams would not exist.
Heat:
1) These barrels have 3-500% more surface area per weight.
2) Our barrels run cooler- not insulate- cooler.
3) Our chambers remain coolest on the barrel as the forward section.
4) Heat moves towards cold- If this is incorrect please provide the counter.
5) The barrels run cooler than their contemporaries- at what point does that matter?
If heat does not matter your cars radiator would be a 4x4x2 solid block.
If heat does not matter cars on the road would be like 1/4 mile or 1/8mile cars- no radiator.
Two basic physic principles are at play within our barrels. Unless physics changed recently our design by properties will outperform a solid barrel.
Physics is a hard fact to get around.
Heavy bull type barrels are stiffer and are insulators. As the mass increases the surface area decreases (fact).
Metal goes thru transitions as it heats: if we keep the barrel heat below specific heat values it will shoot better, longer for a longer life (typically).
Statistics:
Is in our favor because we reduced the variability of structure and heat. Back to the physics.
As you push envelopes the variability of the system will become more pronounced.
If your system will push the physics- then our barrel is a good choice.
If your system is for pleasure then it is an economic choice.
If your goal is to reduce variability- our barrel is a good choice.
For those who note there is no data on shapes and heat... then we are in the realm of absurd.
Vudoo .22
“The first 10-rounds with the SK were one hole. One thing became very obvious to me is the ES/SD impact shows immediately, but that was it. The rifle wants put everything in the same hole. It’s like watching a video game through the scope. No recoil, no movement, nothing just deadness.
Groups at 100-yds | POA 2/10ths high:
+ 1st row CX .001RO | Avg .1675″
+2nd row Midas+ no RO | Avg .268″
+3rd row XACT no RO | Avg .276″
+4th row Tenex no RO | Avg .272″
*RO – Run out
Corollary data:
CX 0.001RO | Avg 1065 SD 6.7
M+ | Avg 1068 SD 11.4
XACT | Avg 1049 SD 8.9
Tenex | Avg 1107 SD 8.1
Δ58 FPS
Honestly, the rifle outperformed every ammo I fed it. It needs to go to Lapua and Eley for testing in their tunnels to find an ammo lot that will deliver the best SD’s. It was amazing shooting across the radar that I could tell based on where the impact went whether the velocity was high or low. I did have some ammo I was testing an Olympic runout gauge on, and the ammo performed best. And it was .001RO. I still need to shoot the .000’s I have, those will tighten up the group even more. Or at least the data of 20 years of research shows that for every .001″ of run out equates to 1/10th group size.
The barrel is outstanding, and shows quickly the weak point is in the ammunition. Even though it’s Olympic ammo.” – Chris Baxter
5-Round Groups from Four Different Manufacturers
View attachment 8314868
An initial look at cool down data- will try to get more from the Cerakote test.
“Small update on MV info and how this barrel shoots. After the lot test I got the rifle back and I ordered 10k rounds for the rifle. Put the rifle back together, zero’d and began gathering data. I like to shoot a couple full boxes for the average. This particular lot was mean averaged by Eley at 1078 MV, I shot 2 full boxes(100rds) with the Garmin mounted to the rifle and after all the rounds recorded I had an average MV of 1140.5, an extreme spread of 18.8, and an SD of 4.8….and this barrel is about 5-600 rds away from being broken in by my usual standard. Crazy result over 100 rds IMHO.
I chose the lot that had a 14mm 50M average. I wasn’t sure that was ‘good’ and he said it was very good and olympians shoot 13-14mm average ammo.
This rifle is HAMMERING for a .22 in terms of repeatability, consistency and potential….and it hasn’t reached its full potential yet which is the most important part for me thus far. It’s this good now and will only get better.“ - @76.binder
“Small update on MV info and how this barrel shoots. After the lot test I got the rifle back and I ordered 10k rounds for the rifle. Put the rifle back together, zero’d and began gathering data. I like to shoot a couple full boxes for the average. This particular lot was mean averaged by Eley at 1078 MV, I shot 2 full boxes(100rds) with the Garmin mounted to the rifle and after all the rounds recorded I had an average MV of 1140.5, an extreme spread of 18.8, and an SD of 4.8….and this barrel is about 5-600 rds away from being broken in by my usual standard. Crazy result over 100 rds IMHO.
I chose the lot that had a 14mm 50M average. I wasn’t sure that was ‘good’ and he said it was very good and olympians shoot 13-14mm average ammo.
This rifle is HAMMERING for a .22 in terms of repeatability, consistency and potential….and it hasn’t reached its full potential yet which is the most important part for me thus far. It’s this good now and will only get better.“ - @76.binder
More on this group and shooter later- Only third party results. No data. 16lbs 8ounces 6BRA cartridge
1000yds- He noted they pulled the first round. Something about a national record if he had held that first round- 9rds at 2.524".
He tested the barrel for months before competing with it... he ordered another one.
Deep Creek Montana: "with that being said 50% of the attempts ended in 1st place day group agging wins. several 2nd and 3rd positins with one bobble at 8th and a personal best for 5shots at 1.9xx" group at 1000yds are rare statistically. Recoil pulse is clearly special. 1.907" group 1000yds Deep Creek Montana- less than 15grps ever shot in a match at sub 2" in light gun.
However - no data yet...
Interesting, I believe I read that on your website. For the most part I do not fault the science, I do wonder about the degree to which these improvements result in meaningful improvements in barrel performance.
Heat is an interesting subject as for the most part, especially in shooting disciplines that would of of interest, as we generally do not see temperatures high enough to significantly alter the barrel structure.
Harmonics in very thick “truck axle” barrels is a topic of much discussion. It is for this reason that with the exception of threaded tuners they all are only offered for thinner barrel (<1.014”). Most analysis feels that harmonics in thick barrels tend to become fixed ( node location). Would your structural changes affect it, most definitely, but again many of us already shoot “truck axles”. Are we going to see an effect and what percentage?
Part of me wonders if like fluting the structure changes reduce weight compared to a comparable solid barrel and other than cooling ( significantly larger surface area) would the benefit be of value to our community of shooters ( I have no doubt that the rimfire BR followers would happily try this).
So at least for my part I admit benefit, but do question it practical application.
I do look forward to seeing continued development and it’s real time success. I do believe that to achieve the success that theoretically is possible, you will need to achieve a much greater penetration in the sport.
Hello Sir- I did send a private message.
I would absolutely PAY for this test.
Please reach out and tell me the parameters.
John
Thank you sir.
Your note about degrees is well understood: stock store barrel to a Bartlein or KS, entry level scope to a ZCO (after all they both have a cross hair), chassis, stocks... all incremental and ... costly.
From a statistics standpoint I would take the reduced variables. If I choose a Bartlein over a Kreiger- what is the reduced variable? How many rounds will it take to isolate the superior barrel? Any machinists in the world will take the machine with reduced variables. Fact is we reduce two variables at "some" cost.
Fact is we never have really contemplated bench rest use. If is already a highly refined equipment known sport with very little room for improvement. The noise of the barrel, vs bullet, vs shooter, vs stock, vs scope would be very hard to separate.
However- We did not build these barrels for typical competitions. We built them for field use and next generation velocities.
The "truck axle": to a field person weight can be king. Would I wield a truck axle in a engagement? If I can reduce the weight by at least 30% and hold the same accuracy it becomes a question of cost vs the soldier.
While a bench gun is hyper capable- would I run one in an engagement? Or would I want an AR10 capable of sub 6" groups at 1000yds (we have shot a whole bunch of sub 3") with a capability to go into the 50-80 rounds? Cost vs the soldier.
I fully expect our new barrels to be capable of much higher life. The base material is also more money, harder to machine... more cost. However, how many rounds will a current design barrel shoot at velocities >4kfps? Calories in vs calories out. At some point the calories in exceed the calories out- then something has to give. Disconnect your radiator and take a drive. Not a stupid statement- our barrel is a radiator.
An innocent question: Why are most stages under 20rds? Is heat a factor?
It would be an interesting test of extremes: a bench gun vs our 6mm for 100rds.
Perhaps silly at a competitive level: How many rounds will be shot in an engagement? I intend to take that into the 100+ realms.
If I am on overwatch: how many trigger pulls will I take? Can I call time out for barrel cooling? Can I call time out as the group opens up? The end variable in this situation is 100+.
Concerning the rigidity: while it will be argued that harmonics has no appreciable effect on the target it CANNOT be denied considerable whip occurs in the platform: barrel, chassis, scope, shooter. The further the gun comes off of target the longer it takes to re-engage. If I can drill you at 1000yds + rapidly, repeatedly because our system is "quieter"... cost vs soldier vs operation success. The system is quiet enough that I could shoot wind call error and easily have 2-4 rounds in the air before the first one lands. The bad guy has no time to evade.
So MauryGold- I concede your point for bench and tiniest groups in the world (how did my 1000yd bench do? Good or bad groups?) I am not sure any data could be produced to show an improvement. However- you cannot compete with us in our target segment.
You had me until you went all field use and engagement. When I look at every picture of one of the structured barrels I see tubes that are mid 20 inch length and well over an inch in diameter. You would be hard pressed to find an operator, with the possible exception of a dedicated sniper rifle, carrying something like these into an engagement.
I really believe you are heading into the wrong audience. I can see F class, Bench Rest, Rimfire Benchrest and ELR shooters being the most likely adopters of this technology. I of course can be wrong (yes, it can happen), but I have not seen a picture of a barrel suitable for what you have described as the target shooters. Also the people you said were too engrained in a strict regimen of equipment are in reality the biggest innovators and most eager to adopt anything new that will give them the edge.
Again I am not denigrating your science, just the extent of the it's benefits and now your target audience (unless i misunderstood your explanation)
I really believe you are heading into the wrong audience. I can see F class, Bench Rest, Rimfire Benchrest and ELR shooters being the most likely adopters of this technology. I of course can be wrong (yes, it can happen), but I have not seen a picture of a barrel suitable for what you have described as the target shooters. Also the people you said were too engrained in a strict regimen of equipment are in reality the biggest innovators and most eager to adopt anything new that will give them the edge.
Again I am not denigrating your science, just the extent of the it's benefits and now your target audience (unless i misunderstood your explanation)
