I tried to order one the other day and was told by ARC guys there not selling them right now. He said reports of POI change if the barrel is struck. I would have figured the amount of positional shooters, hunters, yahooos here it would have shown up here with an issue. I'm gathering my parts for the 7MM SS and was planning on putting one on the rifle while it's apart.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
why did ARC suspend Barloc sales?
- Thread starter missed
- Start date
Don't we all get POI change when the barrel gets smacked hard enough?
I have used barloc extensively and while I hate to be a smart ass, the system has limitations that will affect accuracy and poi. I do think it needs to be redesigned. It’s a great concept so really looking forward to version 2 of it, I will still buy once it’s revised.
It has worked fine for me. I like the concept but I don't change barrels frequently enough to appreciate its full potential.
Care to elaborate on this? Truly interested in the limitations as I plan to use a Barloc extensively...
The couple guys I know have no complaints about there ones either. I mentioned what they said. He shot a few rounds into a Target at 300, picked the rifle up about a foot above the barricade and let the barrel fall back to the barricade. Shot another few rounds at the same target, they were all in the same POI.
Maybe they finally caught on that "switch barrels" are teh gayz
Barloc makes it quick and easy to change barrels, but I found RTZ was always different no matter how diligent I was in swapping barrels.
Yeah depends on what your expectations are for a switch barrel setup. Some just allow easy user change barrels. A smaller subset give you consistent RTZ. I only really care about the former. So if the barloc can maintain zero once installed by the user, then I am happy.
Yeah, I never had any RTZ shift once the barrel was on, but then again I didnt strike the barrel with anything. It was just swapping barrels.
And that's why I like the look of the Barloc. Super easy to change barrels myself. Not worried about RTZ, just nice to order a prefit and swap a barrel myself if I need to.
Maybe an occasional caliber change if I really feel like it, but I can zero before taking it out no problem.
I'm just fine with inconsistent RTZ from one barrel swap to another, as long as zero doesn't move once the barrel/Barloc are tightened up.
I mean, the DTA SRS is supposed to be one of the best RTZ setups on the market, and I don't bother keeping track of each barrel's zero in reference to one another... after each barrel swap, it's close enough to be on paper at 100 yards, and that's all I need... just a few rounds to twiddle the knobs and match POI to POA.
I mean, the DTA SRS is supposed to be one of the best RTZ setups on the market, and I don't bother keeping track of each barrel's zero in reference to one another... after each barrel swap, it's close enough to be on paper at 100 yards, and that's all I need... just a few rounds to twiddle the knobs and match POI to POA.
I did some tests a while back as somehow my barloc rifle did not reach my accuracy expectations, which is consistently under 1/2 moa 5 shot group. Not average, has to be below. I couldn’t figure out what was the issue so I compared nut set up, barloc setup and shoulder set up, luckily I had same caliber in two barrels made by same manufacturer, one shouldered and one remage. My accuracy was best with shoulder setup , then nut setup and last barloc. Also the poi of 3 setup are different, if consider shoulder to be center, nut is about 0.3 mil to the right, and barloc was 0.8 mil down. My guess is barrel run off from axis by different systems. I think it would work great with floating bolt head action but I was using badger m2013 so not an option. Anyway above was my observation and experience, it may be just a correlation instead of causiation. Like some folks mentioned it is serving some folks just fine in their term.
Forgot to mention, poi shift post every barrel switch is just a symptom, thinking behind it, my guess is the system always introduces barrel run off, it just happened to different directions in certain way. A solid, consistent system should not have poi shift no matter how many time you switch it, of course this is idealism.
Last edited:
See, now that's just absurd. Personally, I'm not made of money, so anything I can do to save a few bucks in the long run holds some interest for me.
The slick thing about switch barrel setups is that they allow the user to have one stock/chassis, one trigger, one scope, etc... and use them to shoot multiple chamberings. Alternatively, it also allows the user to have a spare barrel in hand that has been cut to a known spec and is able to switch it himself in only a few minutes. Another advantage is that a single rifle and multiple barrels take up less real estate in the safe, for those who have space restrictions.
As much as I might like to have a dedicated rifle for every chambering I want to shoot, it's just not within my financial means to be able to buy that many quality actions, optics, etc...
I do all that with shouldered barrels.
My PRS rifle has a 6BRA and 6.5 creedmoor shouldered barrels. Takes 3 minutes to change and my zero shift between the barrels is less than 0.1 mils.
I also keep spare shouldered barrels for my .300NM. Got one in the closet.
Every rifle is a "switch barrel" rifle. I prefer to not have to rely on a set screw to retain my barrel. I think the whole "switch barrel" thing is a silly fad.
We went back and forth on this - myself and Bat Machine, and agreed that the shouldered barrel was the way we wanted to go, but its hard to do if there is any fluctuation in head spacing from action to action. We stayed with a shouldered barrel and made the Bat Actions to hold such tolerances so we could do the shouldered pre-fit. So any of our shouldered barrels will headspace on any of our actions from current to many years ago. And lock up at 110 foot pounds on a shoulder.
JamieD
Wolf Precision, Inc.
www.wolfprecision.net
JamieD
Wolf Precision, Inc.
www.wolfprecision.net
I have switched to same method of yours. I also guess that’s why impact and their on the shelf shoulder barrels are so popular. Get a wrench and barrel vise, it is just as fast and don’t really cost much more. Previously no one made shoulder prefit except AI but shoulder prefit will be new trend that’s my view.
I also agree. For how expensive some of these actions are they should be made with closer tolerances so prefits become more viable options for the consumers. I for one have a nucleus that I run a barrel nut on. My impact just cam in today so I can do the shoulder prefit without sending in my action
Pretty sure you can get off the shelf shouldered barrels for the Nucleus as well.
Yeah from PVA. I think you still have to send in your action to a GS for measurements. Then they can spin up a shouldered barrel for you
Core has shoulder prefit for bighorns, impact and Curtis.
Fair enough... and I don't want to have to remove my action from my stock in order to grab the barrel near the tenon before torquing it in place, so it looks like there are options on the market the support both your and my preferences. Ain't it a beautiful thing?
I believe LRI sells prefits too.
Any smith should be able to spin up a shouldered barrel for a mausingfield, nucleus, or Archimedes action without having the receiver. Ted posted the interface drawings and the receiver face to bolt face dimension is held within +/- 0.001". I have short and long action nucleus receivers and every bolt head ARC makes, and every receiver and bolt combo is within a 0.0007" range for that dimension. That's as good as the half dozen AI's I've had and measured over the years.
Well that’s good to know. I asked a couple well known shops and they both wanted my action shipped to them:/
LRI made me a nucleus prefit using my blank, head-spaced perfectly.
I initially ordered a barlock with my nucleus then changed my mind and canceled the barlock. I never switch barrels.
If I want to shoot something else I switch rifles.
I initially ordered a barlock with my nucleus then changed my mind and canceled the barlock. I never switch barrels.
If I want to shoot something else I switch rifles.
No issues to report on my Barloc barrel nut. I only have 200 rounds down the tube and a match next week that should expose any issues.
The Barloc barrel nut version does have an advantage over the standard barrel nut setup as you can torque it down with effecting the head space.
Since bighorn shouldered prefits are becoming as common as a savage prefits, I’ll be switching after this barrel.
The Barloc barrel nut version does have an advantage over the standard barrel nut setup as you can torque it down with effecting the head space.
Since bighorn shouldered prefits are becoming as common as a savage prefits, I’ll be switching after this barrel.
To reduce the odds of inducing any sort of stress/deflection in the barrel while twisting the action with an 18" torque wrench to get it tightened down?
No, I'm talking about vertical/horizontal deflection. If you grab your rifle by the barrel at the fore end of the stock, the weight of the action, stock, optic, etc... is going to want to induce some vertical deflection, right? And using a rear-entry action wrench in conjunction with a torque wrench is only going to either induce deflection in another direction or compound the deflection that's already there (depending on the orientation of the torque wrench as it interfaces with the action wrench).
Or you can use something like a Barloc (or AI's Quickloc,etc...).
I do not understand why this is such a hard concept for some.
A barreled action is a pretty simple bolted joint. Anything beyond those two components is just adding complexity to this simple joint.
Having installed barrels hundreds of times while gripping them close to the muzzle, I can assure you that there are no problems doing so. Return to zero is also as close to perfect as I can measure. It’s a non-issue.
Complexity with an added purpose (convenience). No one is arguing that traditional shouldered barrels threaded directly into the action is inferior in any way except the effort/tooling involved in the barrel swapping process.
Further, no one is arguing that switch barrel mechanisms somehow result in a stronger barrel/action joint than traditional shouldered barrels... the issue in question is whether switch barrel mechanisms result in a barrel/action joint that is strong enough for the application while offering an easier method for swapping barrels.
To use the logic of "simpler is better" is to ignore solutions that provide adequate durability AND enhanced functionality; an example would be scope knobs. Would a knob fixed directly and (semi-)permanently to the elevation adjustment mechanism be simpler and ultimately more durable than something with an adjustable zero stop and resettable zero? Certainly. Would it be as useful to the shooter as an elevation knob that allowed for resetting the zero and configuring a zero stop? Most of us would say no. Therefore, we can see that a well-designed solution that sacrifices ultimate durability while providing enhanced functionality is desirable to most of us as long as it is durable enough.
Barrel is made of steel which is quite elastic, the dozens of foot lb torque is nothing, the barrel vise applies way more pressure and we apply even more shock, fluctuations and pressure to barrel every single trigger pull.
I really think those what pro use articles should change to how pro does it instead, I want to hear from Carl what his final dremel touch secret sauce is....
I really think those what pro use articles should change to how pro does it instead, I want to hear from Carl what his final dremel touch secret sauce is....
I would say based on the title of this thread and ARC's current position on such mechanisms, said products do not meet the intended functional requirement. And accuracy, precision, reliability should all be weighted heavier than convenience when discussing precision rifles.
Not going to comment on the silly scope analogy as it doesn't apply (tracking and adjustment in general is certainly a requirement of a scope)
When I was a young engineer who didn't know head from tails, I was reminded by someone with far more experience "the design isn't complete when there is nothing else to add, its complete when there is nothing else to remove."
People buying bar locks and other devices affects me 0%, so I probably just should have just not commented on this one.
This came up on my feed this morning..
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2268165740128465&id=2028645630747145
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2268165740128465&id=2028645630747145
...and this is what design development/evolution looks like. I'm not saying anything one way or another regarding Barloc accuracy, repeatability, etc..., because I have no hands-on experience (there seem to be conflicting reports from those who do have hands-on experience), and it heartens me to hear that Ted and Co are investigating. It may be that a design revision is required, or perhaps there is a trick to getting the Barloc to perform as designed (either in the installation/usage of it or the machining of the barrel). Perhaps the whole concept is flawed; we'll have to see. In any event, if no one ever tried anything new, we'd never see any advancement in the equipment or techniques that we use as precision shooters.
As for the scope analogy, it is appropriate, because no one said anything about a scope that couldn't be mechanically adjusted; I was talking about having old school adjustments (think Leupold-style capped coin-turn adjustments) vs. modern finger-adjustable knobs that can be reset to zero and have an adjustable zero-stop. The old school knobs are undoubtedly more robust in an absolute sense, but well-designed modern knobs are robust enough for the application while offering increased functionality.
As for the concept of grabbing a barrel past the fore end of the stock with a barrel vise and twisting the action on/off, there are still a couple of things that I don't like about it; namely that it has the potential to damage the barrel finish or requires wrench flats on the barrel. That's to say nothing of carbon fiber barrels that must be grabbed all the way at the muzzle if they're not grabbed near the tenon. The point is that there is usually more than one way to skin a cat, and having options is nice.
For work I spend a lot of time in various manufacturing plants redesigning/refurbishing equipment. Customers often say that they this or that machine is junk because it didn't do what they wanted it to do. They completely ignore the original design intent for the machine. They use it the way they want to use it and then when it breaks they say it was a bad design or wasn't strong enough or whatever.
I recall watching Ted's original video (not the facebook post, but the one that was previously on his website - but is no longer posted). He stated that the user could use it as a switch barrel gun, but said ---- I don't know why you would do that, when I get a gun set up I want it to stay that way till it's time to change the barrel (i'm paraphrasing). Ted's original design intent was to allow uses to swap barrels mid-season without the gun smith waiting time.
So, while I use it as a switch barrel system and change back and forth between practice and match barrels, I am okay with some small POI shift. But I will also say, that when I hand tighten the barrel down onto the Go Gauge and then torque the barloc that my POI shifts are very minimal.
Good luck
Ross
I recall watching Ted's original video (not the facebook post, but the one that was previously on his website - but is no longer posted). He stated that the user could use it as a switch barrel gun, but said ---- I don't know why you would do that, when I get a gun set up I want it to stay that way till it's time to change the barrel (i'm paraphrasing). Ted's original design intent was to allow uses to swap barrels mid-season without the gun smith waiting time.
So, while I use it as a switch barrel system and change back and forth between practice and match barrels, I am okay with some small POI shift. But I will also say, that when I hand tighten the barrel down onto the Go Gauge and then torque the barloc that my POI shifts are very minimal.
Good luck
Ross
Not to derail this, but how are you using a Remage barrel with the badger? Maybe we should just PM, but I'm intrigued.
Last edited:
Badger is Remington thread pattern so really the same thing, you just need to have the tenon made long also eliminate counterbore.
I saw some interesting conversation today on Instagram, with two top PRS shooters stating that they have gone back to shouldered barrels due to observed POI shifts with their switch barrel systems. Specifically they were seeing issues with RTZ whenever their barrel suffered a directional force to it on their switch barrel setup.
I didn't see mention of which switch barrel systems they were using, I imagine they all suffer it to some degree when the barrel is impacted by something.
A shouldered barrel torqued up to ~100 ft-lbs is going to provide a whole lot more POI shift resistance than a set screw. As an engineer that works in the oilfield, I don't have a whole lot of faith in set screws for anything delegated to more than extremely light duty. I would not trust one on a rifle barrel. For how easy it is to swap out a shouldered barrel, the "switch barrel" setups really don't make any sense, not to me anyways. Too much to lose for trivial gain.
I didn't see mention of which switch barrel systems they were using, I imagine they all suffer it to some degree when the barrel is impacted by something.
A shouldered barrel torqued up to ~100 ft-lbs is going to provide a whole lot more POI shift resistance than a set screw. As an engineer that works in the oilfield, I don't have a whole lot of faith in set screws for anything delegated to more than extremely light duty. I would not trust one on a rifle barrel. For how easy it is to swap out a shouldered barrel, the "switch barrel" setups really don't make any sense, not to me anyways. Too much to lose for trivial gain.
I'll agree there are RTZ issues with switch barrels systems that incorporate additional equipment between the receiver and barrel. But I have a hard time faulting the set screw. I think the issue at hand is that the orientation of all components must be the exact same every time for RTZ to be consistent. When I say all components I mean barrel, helical collar, barloc collar, and reciever. In essence it is simply a stacking tolerances issue.
The set screw puts the Barloc in tension, depending on barrel location, helical collar orientation, and BarLoc orientation, I suspect that even though you are putting 90in-lbs on the BarLoc set screw every time, the tension in the system will be different, because something is not the same in the system.
I speculate this because after checking torque with 2 independent torque wrenches, 90in-lbs was never achieved at the same location of the set screw. Might be a quarter turn less, might be a quarter turn more. But it never lined up with the previous witness mark.
I posted a review of BarLoc when it first came out and said RTZ was shit without witness marks. I caught a lot of flack for it. Maybe 0.5-0.6mils RTZ shift. Once I started using witness marks on the barrel and set screw it shrunk to 0.2-0.3mils RTZ between switching barrels. This may or may not be sufficient enough for some but to me it was not.
I too work in the oilfield, specifically in downhole drilling and measurements, and plenty of our tools use set screws to keep components in place. Most of the tools are rated to 30,000psi, 300deg F, vibration resistant to 6 g's.
Set screws seem to be working well for AI's barrel change system.
Certainly some truth to this - a lot of components and tolerance stacking at play. My explanation was certainly over simplified. That said, I still don't trust the set screw.
You must work with MWD equipment. Man, if I had a dollar for every time I've had to trip for when that equipment fails
...
You must work with MWD equipment. Man, if I had a dollar for every time I've had to trip for that equipment
I could not work for Sperry because of that
It all comes down to your end goals. Sometimes it isn't about having the BEST of this or that.....it's about having what you want. That's why we still build/buy M40A1's.
My Barloc works perfectly for my needs, but I'm not claiming it's the best, it just gives me some options that I want. But lets face it, how many top benchrest and F-class shooters are using switch barrel devices versus just a standard shouldered barrel - shouldered barrels win hands down.
I guess I'm just thankful that there is more than one flavor of ice cream in the world and I'm glad that I can have a Barloc on my competition rig and my light weight mountain rifle is just a shouldered barrel!
So before you could get ARC Savage barrel nuts for the barloc, I cut a standard Savage nut. 30 degree taper on the back side to mesh with the barloc inner ring, and had to cut out some threads on the inside on the front endto get it all to fit.
I just chucked it up in my 3 jaw Chuck for all operations. With that setup I could push POI left and right 6-8" based on where the but clocked. I believe because my lathe job wasn't perfectly aligned with the existing threads. If I wanted to run the headspace to dangerous levels my guess is that it'd have made a circle of POI shift.
Typically with my shouldered setups I'm within a mil of previous zero. I have tested hand tight, then incremental tightening up to the full torque value on the barloc. Hand tight shot different POI, but good groups. All groups with any torque on the barloc had the same POI.
I haven't tried impact on the barrel. Next outing I might. Kind of curious now.
I just chucked it up in my 3 jaw Chuck for all operations. With that setup I could push POI left and right 6-8" based on where the but clocked. I believe because my lathe job wasn't perfectly aligned with the existing threads. If I wanted to run the headspace to dangerous levels my guess is that it'd have made a circle of POI shift.
Typically with my shouldered setups I'm within a mil of previous zero. I have tested hand tight, then incremental tightening up to the full torque value on the barloc. Hand tight shot different POI, but good groups. All groups with any torque on the barloc had the same POI.
I haven't tried impact on the barrel. Next outing I might. Kind of curious now.
Similar threads
- Sticky
