Gunsmithing A tale of two barrels

[davere]

I know, I know, it's dangerous to trust a bore scope. I get it. I bought a Teslong recently, and decided to see if I could get some insight on a problem I've had with a barrel since it was new. I'm not sure what to make of the resulting video, so posting here to see if y'all have any (useful) thoughts.

These are both 6.5 barrels from a well known, well respected maker. The first (in "part 1") was my first 6.5 CM barrel. It's old (2400 rounds), but still shoots sub-1/2 MOA with basically bullet I feed it after load development. Aside from being a little slow, I'm still very happy with this barrel. There are some more notes in the YouTube video summary. To me, this one looks clean, with just the firecracking you'd expect from a barrel of that age.

The second (in "part 2") is my problem child. My second 6.5 CM barrel. Same barrel maker. It has about 700 rounds on it, and most of that was spent trying to find something that would shoot in it. The absolute best I could get with 140gr ELD-M or Hybrids was 3/4 MOA, and that wasn't super consistent (I'd occasionally have flyers). With 140 RDF (which served me very well in the first barrel), this barrel won't even shoot sub-MOA. I finally tried 147gr ELD-Ms in it, and found something that would shoot better than 1/2 MOA. Again, more notes in the YT video.

The second barrel looks wild, to me. It's hard to follow a groove with the scope, and the grooves look really odd vs. the first barrel. Odd, like groove walls appear to look wavy, at times, and show other weird tooling marks (like longitudinal marks that look like scratches down the center of the groove). Like I mentioned in the vid, I've looked down this barrel several times, and always see something else weird. I had trouble finding the spot today, but one of the grooves has what looks like a big fissure in the middle of it, about 1/3 of the way down the barrel (IIRC).

Like I said above, I'm not sure what to make of this. I'm open to ideas. I'm doubting I'll buy another barrel from this maker in the future, after this, unless I'm just way off base and this is normal? I'm just glad I got it to shoot with something so I can get some lifetime out of it.

 

[Wannashootit]

Didn't watch the videos...
Question I have is, what makes you "zero in" on the barrel itself- rather than all of the other variables that could contribute to relative "inaccuracy"?

Who did the chambering (you, or a smith)? Have you ruled out any issues of concentricity with the chamber?
Stock/chassis: confirmed stress-free (bedded or not) fitment of action?

Just sayin' that for me, the borescope might be among the last tools to break out and only after I'd ruled out what to me, would be more obvious suspects.

 

[davere]

Fair question.

Barreled was chambered by the same smith that did the first, with the same reamer. The smith is top shelf - they’re not the problem.

I triple checked all the variables, including, but not limited to torque on action, scope rail, scope rings, barrel, etc. I put the first barrel back on, and double checked that it still shot (it did). I tried Hornady factory 140 ELD-M. I pulled the brake off. I had someone else shoot it with no knowledge about what ammo was being shot.

I tried putting the action into an MPA chassis. The original stock (T-4A) was bedded when the rifle was first built. It would be a super rare case where the stock would cause a problem with one barrel and not the other.

So, in that 700 rounds, I eliminated a lot of variables before deciding it was likely the tube. I probably went too far - the only thing that changed was the barrel, but I checked the rest anyway, just to be sure.

 

[Tobyboy22]

I’m no expert, but that second barrel looks funky to me

 

[Thud]

Try different bullet powder combo.

 

[Tokay444]

That second barrel is a dog’s breakfast.

 

[davere]

Try different bullet powder combo.

How many should I try? I’m on my fourth... at least the fourth one seems to shoot...

 

[Supersubes]

Barrel number two is ugly. If you’re not going to mention the maker, what was the rifling process?

 

[HiDesertELR]

Send those videos to the shop that supplied them, see what they say. I'm sure they'd want to know if one of their tools wasn't cutting it... No pun intended.

Agree #2 looks funky compared to #1. No expert here though.

 

[ugsly308]

I give every barrel a quick scope before I install it. Number 2 does not look right. I'd pull the barrel, call the manufacturer send it back to have them look at it. Give them a chance to fix it if its wrong.

Casey

 

[davere]

Barrel number two is ugly. If you’re not going to mention the maker, what was the rifling process?

It’s s cut rifling. I didn’t want people knowing the maker to influence any feedback. Also, my intention wasn’t to blast the maker - just get some sanity check.

 

[LRI]

For the price of that bore scope I'd of bought another barrel and been done with it. Its only showing you what $10 worth of ammo and an hour of your time already confirmed. I personally have never seen the need to buy such a thing as it comes down to a simple question: What problem is it solving?

 

[davere]

For the price of that bore scope I'd of bought another barrel and been done with it. Its only showing you what $10 worth of ammo and an hour of your time already confirmed. I personally have never seen the need to buy such a thing as it comes down to a simple question: What problem is it solving?

can you buy a barrel for $50? Ha ha. The Teslong is super cheap - I bought it to monitor carbon and fouling build up in my .22 (just as curiosity). I don’t think it’s useful otherwise, and wouldn’t have bought it if it wasn’t so inexpensive.

 

[LRI]

can you buy a barrel for $50? Ha ha. The Teslong is super cheap - I bought it to monitor carbon and fouling build up in my .22 (just as curiosity). I don’t think it’s useful otherwise, and wouldn’t have bought it if it wasn’t so inexpensive.

Ok, you got me. (fugger, lol) I was assuming a Hawkeye.

I'll STFU now.

 

[davere]

Ok, you got me. (fugger, lol) I was assuming a Hawkeye.

I'll STFU now.

ha ha. Yeah, I have no interest in a Hawkeye, and really no need for one. But, for $50, why not?

 

[demonjigger]

Have you shown the videos to the barrel maker?

 

[davere]

Have you shown the videos to the barrel maker?

I have not, yet. Based on this thread, and a couple off-thread conversations, I'm planning on contacting them later in the week, when I have a moment.

 

[ubettcha]

It could have looked fine from the maker but is a bad piece of steel from the foundry. Good luck with the conversation.

 

[hunter1959]

I know, I know, it's dangerous to trust a bore scope. I get it. I bought a Teslong recently, and decided to see if I could get some insight on a problem I've had with a barrel since it was new. I'm not sure what to make of the resulting video, so posting here to see if y'all have any (useful) thoughts.

These are both 6.5 barrels from a well known, well respected maker. The first (in "part 1") was my first 6.5 CM barrel. It's old (2400 rounds), but still shoots sub-1/2 MOA with basically bullet I feed it after load development. Aside from being a little slow, I'm still very happy with this barrel. There are some more notes in the YouTube video summary. To me, this one looks clean, with just the firecracking you'd expect from a barrel of that age.

The second (in "part 2") is my problem child. My second 6.5 CM barrel. Same barrel maker. It has about 700 rounds on it, and most of that was spent trying to find something that would shoot in it. The absolute best I could get with 140gr ELD-M or Hybrids was 3/4 MOA, and that wasn't super consistent (I'd occasionally have flyers). With 140 RDF (which served me very well in the first barrel), this barrel won't even shoot sub-MOA. I finally tried 147gr ELD-Ms in it, and found something that would shoot better than 1/2 MOA. Again, more notes in the YT video.

The second barrel looks wild, to me. It's hard to follow a groove with the scope, and the grooves look really odd vs. the first barrel. Odd, like groove walls appear to look wavy, at times, and show other weird tooling marks (like longitudinal marks that look like scratches down the center of the groove). Like I mentioned in the vid, I've looked down this barrel several times, and always see something else weird. I had trouble finding the spot today, but one of the grooves has what looks like a big fissure in the middle of it, about 1/3 of the way down the barrel (IIRC).

Like I said above, I'm not sure what to make of this. I'm open to ideas. I'm doubting I'll buy another barrel from this maker in the future, after this, unless I'm just way off base and this is normal? I'm just glad I got it to shoot with something so I can get some lifetime out of it.

I have come across, just recently, the multiple issues that apparently accrue to the 140 and 147 ELD M product of Hornady... all rifles have a preference, I have no idea why, it is the great mystery of precision shooting... so one person, one rifle might produce different results from the next down the line... I can relate this however... when I went through the process of selecting manufacture and grain for my new AI/AT in 6.5 cr, I tested Norma, Federal, Black Hills and Hornady 140gr ELD M... the results among the rest varied from .75 moa to 1.00 moa in all but the Hornady... which consistently over 5 groups of 3 produced .25 moa.. all at 100 yards... the Bartlein barrel is 24"... take it for what it is worth

 

[BCX]

Barrel 2 looks like its a wavy 5r cut rifling?

 

[sandwarrior]

Was hoping the OP would come back with a follow-up to what was the final result of this issue?

 

[davere]

Was hoping the OP would come back with a follow-up to what was the final result of this issue?

The TL;DR is ... the manufacturer replaced the barrel, and the gunsmith is spinning the new barrel up now. I don't want to get too much further down the rathole than that, because the right thing seems to have happened in the end, regardless of what opinions the different parties involved have on why that barrel is so weird looking.

 

[sandwarrior]

The TL;DR is ... the manufacturer replaced the barrel, and the gunsmith is spinning the new barrel up now. I don't want to get too much further down the rathole than that, because the right thing seems to have happened in the end, regardless of what opinions the different parties involved have on why that barrel is so weird looking.

Thank you for that. And, glad you went no further down the rathole than you did. We gun people have enough on our plate from the outside world without fighting amongst ourselves. Granted, conflict isn't fun (to some) but it has to be dealt with. I'm glad it got sorted. A good gesture would be to allow this barrel maker their mistake and buy from them the next time too. Maybe just a gesture, but keeping goodwill among us is paramount. Glad your gunsmith stepped right up to the plate too!

 

[RTH1800]

I’m always surprised by the bore scope haters. Stunning.

 

[RTH1800]

For the price of that bore scope I'd of bought another barrel and been done with it. Its only showing you what $10 worth of ammo and an hour of your time already confirmed. I personally have never seen the need to buy such a thing as it comes down to a simple question: What problem is it solving?

Not all tools solve problems. Ever hear the term diagnostics? No problem can be consistently solved until properly diagnosed.

What problems do X-rays, MRI’s, EKG’s etc. solve?

Prior to optical bore scopes Springfield Armory utilized a "star gauge" on their NM barrels. It was a primitive, non optical bore scope or diagnostic tool. Later guys like Ed Shilen air gauged barrels. It was all diagnostics.

Ignorance is seldom a useful tool on the path to success. Less so with self imposed ignorance.

 

[davere]

I’m always surprised by the bore scope haters. Stunning.

Well, I get where they're coming from. The borescope is a tool, just like the others you mention in your next post (air gauge, star gauge, etc), and a person needs to know how to use the tool to interpret the results correctly. Without knowing what a "normal" barrel should look like, an average person looking at a barrel might be horrified to see what the thing actually looks like - especially mid-way through its life or beyond. Many people have bought a 'scope, checked out their barrels, and panic'ed as a result, which results in a lot of BS on the gunsmith end where the 'smith has to explain that everything is normal, etc.

I think Chad's perspective - basically, let the rifle/barrel tell you what's going on by how it's shooting - is really the best bet. I've seen images from barrels that look horrific, and yet they shoot lights out. And I've also seen guys post images that look pristine, and the barrel's a tomato stake. I'm also pretty sure Chad's dealt with a ton of people who don't know what the hell they're looking at (and I likely fall squarely in that range) - and that adds up to a negative attitude about borescopes in the hands of amateurs, for sure.

I only scoped these two barrels because I was curious what I'd see - I actually didn't expect to see anything out of place, and figured the barrel was super finicky for other reasons. I mainly bought the scope to monitor my barrels for cleaning purposes, and that's about it. It's a $50 tool, in my case (one of the cheap ones talked about elsewhere on the forum). Just happened to see something interesting in this tube.

 

[Tokay444]

I think Chad's perspective - basically, let the rifle/barrel tell you what's going on by how it's shooting - is really the best bet. I've seen images from barrels that look horrific, and yet they shoot lights out. And I've also seen guys post images that look pristine, and the barrel's a tomato stake. I'm also pretty sure Chad's dealt with a ton of people who don't know what the hell they're looking at (and I likely fall squarely in that range) - and that adds up to a negative attitude about borescopes in the hands of amateurs, for sure.

I only scoped these two barrels because I was curious what I'd see - I actually didn't expect to see anything out of place, and figured the barrel was super finicky for other reasons. I mainly bought the scope to monitor my barrels for cleaning purposes, and that's about it. It's a $50 tool, in my case (one of the cheap ones talked about elsewhere on the forum). Just happened to see something interesting in this tube.

That makes a very heavy assumption that the shooter is capable of shooting at or close to the barrel's potential. I have ok days, and not so ok days, and some days I just get really lucky it seems. I'm never sure whether the flyers in my group are me (sometimes I know they're me, don't get me wrong), my load, my reloading process, or my equipment.

I bought my Teslong STRICTLY to know that I had a clean chamber and throat when I'm done cleaning too.

 

[RTH1800]

I think most experienced shooters know if their 12# plus rifle throws one an inch out at 100 yards if they made a mistake or the rifle was not shooting well.

 

[davere]

The second barrel really made me question myself. LOL. In fact, that's part of what took me so long to narrow down to the barrel as the problem - questioning my skill behind the gun, and as a reloader. I fell back to a couple of "known good" loads that should shoot in most 6.5CMs (Hornady factory 140 ELD-M, and reloads using 41gr H4350 and a Berger 140gr Hybrid seated .020 off the lands), and it wouldn't shoot them, either. Then I had to eliminate me.

But, I bought my Teslong for same reasons...

 

[Tokay444]

I think most experienced shooters know if their 12# plus rifle throws one an inch out at 100 yards if they made a mistake or the rifle was not shooting well.

An inch at 100, sure, but what about the 5th shot flyer in this 300 yard group?

 

[RTH1800]

That is a hell of a group "flyer" and all.
Puff of breeze can do that at 100 yards. Opened it up to what, .35 MOA?

 

[davere]

An inch at 100, sure, but what about the 5th shot flyer in this 300 yard group?

That's a tenth of a mil or so? With the ballistics of my 6.5CM load (147 at 2800fps), all it takes is a 2mph wind change to move the bullet that far at 300y. Yeah, a one hole group at 300y is impressive as hell - but is your system capable of consistent sub-1/3 MOA performance (including your wind calling being 100% accurate to 2mph or below)? A 1/3-MOA group - even with what you'd call a flyer - is still quite good (at least for field rifles). At 300y, you're now having to take wind into account, and that changes things up - a 2mph wind change (even if it's from zero to 2 mph) happens easily and can be difficult to discern

 

[Steel head]

I think most experienced shooters know if their 12# plus rifle throws one an inch out at 100 yards if they made a mistake or the rifle was not shooting well.

It took me years to get that confidence.

 

[Tokay444]

That is a hell of a group "flyer" and all.
Puff of breeze can do that at 100 yards. Opened it up to what, .35 MOA?

You guessed it!
I’m very happy with this rifle that I’ve build for myself, and the load I put together for it.
I couldn’t have done it without the wealth of knowledge on here, and in general. I learn very well from reading, and have a very mechanical mind in general where I can think critically of an idea that doesn’t make sense at all, and the ones that do, but shooting that group, I can’t help but feel the stars were aligned there. I don’t know that it’s going to be repeatable. I’m still learning how to shoot.
Second image, where my finger is are the first 3 shots down the barrel that night. Then, WTH?! I’m okay with saying they were me, but am I 100% sure they were? No. I guess that’s all part of the fun and learning process.
Sorry. I didn’t mean to thread jack

 

[Tokay444]

The night was very calm, but am I confident calling my wind to 2mph? I wouldn’t bet mine or anyone else’s life on it, that’s for sure.