-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Gunsmithing Any thoughts on structured barrels?
- Thread starter TriggerJerk!
- Start date
I mean, tuners and structured barrels are both equally BS for the same reasons. Harmonics aren’t a driving factor in a rifle’s precision
I don’t know that beyond a shadow of a doubt, but CamelSucky keeps misconstruing his hearsay for fact, and then have a public mental breakdown anytime someone asks him to quantify anything.
I think he should list all of his match wins and national championships. I would like to know who he is. Announce his greatness for us.
Chris Schmidt
Tennessee
With greatest respect, sir. You are an idiot.
The concept dates back decades, but mainly in large barrels for artillery and similar. The ability to bring it down to small arms level (economically) is actually a major deal. It is also only getting more interesting as the production methods mature.
But please, sir. Do keep going off on your bloviating yourself.
Sirhr
I've seen this repeated a couple of times in this thread, but honestly don't know that much about artillery barrels. Can you provide an example of what you're talking about? Asking so that I can learn something. I'm genuinely curious, not trying to call anyone out.
Anyway, back to normal conversations. We have a couple structured barrels for customer builds we just finished up. Will be shooting them this week.
Won't be able to burn hundreds of rounds for anything more than an anecdotal opinion since they aren't shop rifles, but will still be interesting.
Won't be able to burn hundreds of rounds for anything more than an anecdotal opinion since they aren't shop rifles, but will still be interesting.
Please show how harmonics are a driving factor in precision. Put up or shut up
Stuff like that is repeated without proof and is frankly completely irrelevant to the discussion of small arms and practical precision sports. Idgaf about benchrest railguns or 40lb F class open rifles
Well. Mr. 86 posts since 2020 who thinks he is suddenly an expert on barrel dynamics...
I'll deal with you in the morning.
Cheers!
Sirhr
Why? So you can help your fellow anarchists? Ha.
Edit: mixed up with someone else. Sorry.
Last edited:
People still believe carbs are better than efi, and asbestos is the best form of insulation. You have have the mental capacity of moldy potato.
Go be autistic somewhere else.
Regardless if said source is in fact moron.....it's a fair question. Structured barrels aren't all that new now. So, it's fair to assume if the advantage was large enough, people would be using them more at the top echelon of competition.
Not in any way saying they don't work. Just saying it's a valid question. And there could easily be valid reasons why they aren't being used more despite giving an advantage.
I agree.
I think structured barrels are an interesting idea. Whether they actually work or not, I don't know.
But I do find it odd that if they were to give the slightest advantage, let alone a big one, they would be used in disciplines like BR. I find it interesting that they aren't.
Here’s some questions for the harmonics crowd:
If seating depth is used for making sure the bullet exits at the optimal barrel time, then why does that stop being an issue with the tangent and hybrid designs?
Do harmonics just not happen when a tangent or hybrid bullet is loaded? or maybe seating depth is just to align the bullet relative to the bore (like the people designing the bullets state) and harmonics don’t actually matter
If seating depth is used for making sure the bullet exits at the optimal barrel time, then why does that stop being an issue with the tangent and hybrid designs?
Do harmonics just not happen when a tangent or hybrid bullet is loaded? or maybe seating depth is just to align the bullet relative to the bore (like the people designing the bullets state) and harmonics don’t actually matter
I'm not a proponent or a non proponent of harmonics. But are you suggesting seating depth doesn't affect tangent and hybrid profile bullets? If you're just using the description "not sensitive to seating depth," then you're taking that out of context. Sensitive doesn't mean it's no longer a thing.
Here is Berger advising shooters to test seating depth up to .060 jump with a hybrid:
How to Load a Hybrid Bullet
Berger Hybrid Bullets were designed to be easy to load and tune to your rifle. Follow these simple steps to get started.
bergerbullets.com
Hi 45-90. I'll mention some of the things in this in subsequent posts because your later posts have some excellent points about tolerance and machine finish.
As for the last paragraph... absolutely spot on! And small arms design for decades has used these techniques. The M60 machine gun barrel, for example, uses a Stellite barrel insert/chamber area to allow sustained air-cooled firing. It's expensive, but the result was a high-rate-of-fire gun with superb longevity and excellent accuracy. As for the coolant pumping through the barrels, this dates back to the earliest days of sustained fire weapons... the Maxim's, Vickers, Brownings, etc. that used barrel cooling jackets. In addition, the 'water' had a damping effect, being a moving fluid. This is what gave the WW1 trench defenders so much killing power. Sustained fire that could go on for extended periods without cooking off or simply melting out the barrels.
Note that the same belt fed guns were later adapted for aircraft use by eliminating (or cutting open) the water jackets to allow air flow around the barrels. At aircraft speed and some level of altitude (a few thousand feet) the barrels cooled enough to allow reliable firing. Plus the planes didn't have the ability to carry more than a single belt of ammunition (per gun forward-firing gun) so shooting was limited to short bursts. Again, weight and sustained fire were not the issues that they were with ground firing from entrenched positions.
More to follow! Cheers!
Sirhr
PS. My apologiees for not jumping in earlier... I didn't get notification that this thread was active again and have been following it carefully pretty much from the get-go!
Hahaha.
So now you are comparing structured barrels with EFI? I won't call you an autist becuase that would assume you have some intelligence above retardation.
Look at f1. Money is no object...people who put their fucking money where there mouth is. That's what matters.
In places where titles and money matter no one is using this bullshit. In the years it has been out ( and everyone in the elr world knows who Tacom is) no one is using their snake oil barrels. Fclass? Br? Prs? Nope
So before you go throwing insults look at yourself sport. Also, wipe the baker cream off your lips.
A concept doesn't mean shit and you are rattling off bullshit that has zero practical applicability. Go look at the any of the small arms museums and collections. Take a drive to the navy yard and ask Jay Thomas ( chief of naval collections branch) for a tour of the vault. You will see no such structured barrels or similar from small arms up to the naval artillery guns. Some weird air cooled shit from ww1/ww2 but anything modern where we actually understand this shit is just a tube. I've been through every corner of that collection and out off all the prototypes and rare shit....no structured or similar barrels out of thousands of guns. If you could wring the baker bullshit claims out of a tube....it would be used by someone. It's not becuase it's all horseshit.
You are making the claims of an ignorant fool and have the balls to call someone else an idiot...
Hi DbD:
This is the same approach I took when I read this thread at the beginning and think it is absolutely THE most productive and valuable way to approach the whole Structured Barrel design and development world. As you may have read in my early posts, I got interested in these from the get-go. Partly because I like innovation (and SH is the home for a lot of it!) and because I knew about the structured barrel concept (and had worked with it) some 20 years ago. (More on this below... but it's also documented above in my earlier posts.)
I had a rifle built and it has been an incredible performer. But I'm a small sample size... as has been pointed out. So, just under 2 years ago, I visited John Baker at his shop in Arkansas and, despite foul weather and his neighbor's house being smashed to sticks by a tornado a day or two before, tried out several additional rifles (as well as my own). The plan was for me to spend all day and to use one of my own optics on several of his rifles to at least negate any issues with 'unfamiliar' rifle/scope controls. Unfortunately (and fortunately) the weather made extended day of shooting impossible. That said, firing unfamiliar guns/loads/scopes... none of which I adjusted for me (beyond focus and parallax), I was able to hammer targets. Again, above post describes it.
The most interesting part was seeing the machining operation and then spending a couple of hours talking with John. Something that I am sure he would welcome if you wanted to visit.
All that said, I have (except for groups) primarily qualitative values. Your willingness to dive deep and do some public, independent and documented quantative analysis is both welcome and needed. Because as sold as I am on the concept (and was even before I heard of TACOM), the community needs guys like you to step up and do serious analysis.
So I'll be following your build and data. This is the way we move things forward! Thanks for also taking up the challenge!
Cheers,
Sirhr
PS. The 'reduced recoil' advantage of the structured barrel is something that John brings up. And which most people (me included) who shoot them note. That said, this is one of the areas that I am not sure whether I am feeling 'reduced' recoil. Or just 'different' form of recoil. Is it less? Well, it's different. Then again, I'm pretty recoil immune at this point. So I don't pay much attention whether it's a .470 Capstick or a .308. Shoot enough, you tune it out mentally. So I will be interested to see if there is an actual physical, measurable 'decrease' in recoil energy directed at the shoulder... or if there is simply a different feeling or sensation. Or if weight (it's still heavier than most tactical rifle barrels... just lighter for OD) is playing a role. Again, thanks for this! If you want to chat any time, PM me! Glad to talk about my experiences. And, seriously, visit TACOM!
I'll be interested in the data on the coatings as well. My barrel is uncoated and I opted not to have the 'blast' finish done on it. Again, see my earlier posts about cooling over a greater surface area.
Coatings as a rule create insulating effects. That said, some of the modern vapor deposit coatings may have some real effects on cooling. And the engineers at Cerokote are doing some interesting stuff. Again, I maintain an open mind and look forward to hearing more!
Cheers and Happy New Year!
Sirhr
Actually, your knowledge of building engineering is very applicable to the design of any kind of 'structured' mechanical device. It's a 'structure' for a reason! You deal with stressed skin. You deal with I-beams (instead of solid blocks). You deal with dynamic forces like wind loads, vibration, ground movement (even if you aren't in California or Tokyo), static loads such as loading (libraries need to be designed different than office buildings!).
And your willingness to looked at pushing boundaries new approaches is the kind of thing we do around here. Kudos.
Sirhr
I am going to repeat what a great sniper instructor once told me “ Most people have a hard enough time making a perfectly round barrel with the bore directly in the center adding flutes is just one more thing not to
Be perfect “
I have learned over many years of competition and other shooting. Keep the variables to a minimum to be the most consistent
The way the structured barrels are made adds many variables Too many to get me excited to be a Guinea Pig tester
Be perfect “
I have learned over many years of competition and other shooting. Keep the variables to a minimum to be the most consistent
The way the structured barrels are made adds many variables Too many to get me excited to be a Guinea Pig tester
And here is one of the values of SH and threads like this.
Because it gets folks a place to find information and to, ultimately, build up data. The fact that several folks got to know TACOM here and have ordered barrels and then come back to give results mean we ARE getting more data.
Sadly not enough. And not enough for folks who want to just crap over new technology or innovative concepts.
If this were Picatinny Arsenal or Crane Labs or one of the giant contractors, they would have a government grant to study for decades, shoot millions or rounds, compile massive amounts of data and then maybe someone would believe it. But more than likely, there would be an endless parade of crap-shovelers who would still say that they can shoot a mile just fine with their 18" deer rifle.
The answer is for more people to try them, post results and wring out the technology. I find it interesting that the folks who have shot them and own them and have built them (Vestals among others) are sold on the concept. I was sold on it decades ago, but for reason explained above (and I'll reiterate later responding to a specific post) the concept got shelved in favor of other technologies or due to cost/benefit.
Cheers!
Sirhr
Yes I am suggesting seating depth doesn’t affect tangent and hybrid bullets. Hornady said so in the podcast I linked earlier in this thread, that they’d have to change seating depth over .100” to see any change in precision. Same with reloadingallday on YouTube with a hybrid design.I'm not a proponent or a non proponent of harmonics. But are you suggesting seating depth doesn't affect tangent and hybrid profile bullets? If you're just using the description "not sensitive to seating depth," then you're taking that out of context. Sensitive doesn't mean it's no longer a thing.
Here is Berger advising shooters to test seating depth up to .060 jump with a hybrid:
How to Load a Hybrid Bullet
Berger Hybrid Bullets were designed to be easy to load and tune to your rifle. Follow these simple steps to get started.
Agreed... nothing made it into production in any meaningful way. And I was going to address this in a post asking about where the concept had been used....
I can say without question that it was examined through the 1990's and into the 2000's for gatling gun barrels. It was also being examined by Dr. Gerald Bull at his labs in Vermont much earlier. Some of his alumni ended up working with us. I can't say for sure, but I am willing to bet that similar studies and examinations were made at Watervliet and NRL and Crane, etc. because we were basing our small arms work on concepts first created for artillery dating back decades. More on this below.
Some of the benefits that John Baker has discussed did prove out in testing. BUT... The machining costs and the difficulty, at the time, of making any kind of structured barrels was simply a non-starter. At the same time, we were doing things with carbon fiber. Similarly issues with the nascent technology made it a non-starter. For the cost machining out a single structured barrel, you could make several 'standard' barrels and make them throw-away. And simply replace after a certain number of rounds for the 'incremental' benefit gained through structure.
Most of the information on this stuff, at the time, was either internal use or classified. BUT I am willing to bet that today a FOIA request or a search would find it's now available or could be taken out from its classification. Because, really, it's not a gamechanger in the military world. And if it's not a gamechanger, noone cares if it's public.
It's still expensive! No doubt about that. But folks who are shooting them seem to extoll their virtues. Are we just 'fanboys' justifying our expenditure? Maybe. Or maybe not. Which is why I was pleased to see your willingness to do quantitative analysis.
As for why the concept never caught on in artillery barrels and heavy barrels? The answer was pretty simple. Computers. Engineers years ago figured out that software could take much simpler designs and make them perform in a way that a physical engineere (materials, machining) could not approach realistically or cost-effectively, or in terms of weight. But fitting a laser to a barrel to measure droop, round counts, heat sensors, humidity and moisture detectors, altitude detectors... all that sort of thing can be hung on to a simple tube and then the key function of (repeatability) can be done with servos, laser targeting and software logic. Using technology that pre-dates the 486 chip. It's one of the reasons that the Abrams can shoot accurately, on the move, with a smooth bore gun.
We see the same thing with modern car design (no, not bringing up EFI!)... which is that many cars with their 'sensor' systems turned off are almost un-driveable. But why a new minivan will just about out-handle a Ferrari from the 1990's! In place of 'Colin Chapman" level chassis engineering, you have software. Is it better or worse? There's arguments to be made on both sides. It's far better in terms of cost/performance. It is not better in terms of cost or reliability... especially if your car goes into limp mode. As with anything, there are tradeoffs!
Going back to the structured barrel, the reason that folks seem to be interested in TACOM's approach to a barrel is that they have come up with ways to machine barrels in a way that provides benefits and performance of a larger, heavier, bigger diameter barrel with a form factor and weight that makes it fit in our world of 'tactical' rifles. In other words... not bolted to a bench or in a science lab. And the practicality of 'wiring up' our rifles with Abrams or Paladin-like software and sensors is not practical, either. That said, I won't argue for a moment that fundamentals ranging from wind and mirage reading to extensive shooting experience almost certainly make more of a difference to the average shooter than a structured barrel. And that the advent of ballistic computers, Kestrals, 'smart scopes' and the like have had a greater effect on precision marksmanship, I don't think John Baker is selling barrels to the 'average' shooter, either. (Also not saying above average... but to folks who want to try a different rabbit hole of precision shooting.) We won't see these on deer rifles!
Anyway, as I said, I appreciate your approach of stepping up and buying one and doing the quantative testing that I'm not equipped to do and that noone who is competing with them is inclined to do. And if your numbers say my 'qualitative data' is wrong, then it's wrong. That's the value of this place. Because it's a forum for discussion to advance the science of ballistics. And finding out that 'something' doesn't work is, in fact, advancing the science. Because you find out a way of not doing things... and move on to other ways of doing things.
Cheers,
Sirhr
I spent 6 years with an R&D squadron for field testing & evaluations in theater. From Crane and the “other programs,” we basically had a money printer. We definitely had a different standard of testing and analysis. I bite my tongue a lot because people really don’t know what they don’t know.
When I was there in 2022 I talked to them about an MRAD barrel and I believe they had already delivered one/some.
I am also interested in one in .300 Norma Mag but got side-tracked on some other projects in recent months. IIRC as long as you can get a blank in the necessary sizes to fit into an MRAD Barrel "Kit" they can spin one up for you. But I'll let @John Baker address that in more detail.
Cheers,
Sirhr
So one last post before I go do something productive and continue stuffing a 401 V8 in my Jeep...
Folks here have brought up barrel tuners, tensioned barrels. Earlier are discussions of cryo processing, sandblasting, shot peening, heat soaking and myriad other approaches to increasing accuracy. Which is really increasing repeatability. Because there is a difference between accurate and repeatable. And the goal is to make a platform that is a combination of ammunition and gun (and shooter, but they're hard to make 100 percent repeatable) that is utterly repeatable. Another way of saying it is 'predictable.' In other words, given a set of circumstances the shooter will be able to place a round in an exactly predicted location with each shot.
All those approaches are valid on their own way. Camel guy brought up tensioned barrels. It's an approach and a valid one. So are barrel tuners. (More on that below.) So are hardening finishes and heat treatments and cryo.
But to what degree and in what combination? Well, if we'd figured that out, there would be no need for anyone to continue developing small arms past John Browning. Instead, ballistics science has been a driver of a huge number of technologies over the past 400+ years and that the spinoffs range from materials science to chemistry to computers.
I'll say that I know tuners work in a way. But it's my opinion (and it's just an opinion) that they are often used wrong. Put on thin barrels (like the old BOSS system) and intended to dial in a barrel that is not really suited in the first place for highly-repeatable shooting. Is it an invalid technology? Not at all! They work. But they aren't going to turn a deer rifle into an AI any more than a new trigger or a strip of canvas stretched over the barrel.
So argument about 'this works, this is snake oil' aren't helpful. The answer is that some combination of 'all of the above' is going to work in this or that application. Want a utterly stable barrel for a bench gun? Make it 3" in diameter and mount it on rails bolted to a concrete plinth. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for PRS. Want to get 10,000 FPS? Dooable... but you need a barrel the length of a room with stepped charges set off by computer. Fast! Yup. Practical? Yes, if your goal is to determine how things perform at 10,000 FPS. Not useful for varmint hunting.
Does a structured barrel have value? Sure. And slowly more people are finding out what that is. Is it for everyone? Even John Baker and owners say no. Why do I shoot one? Because I love bleeding edge stuff and think this is part of the future in some applications.
I'll make a prediction, though, and that is the 'real' future of ELR and similar is not going to be in magic bullets or new barrel technologies, etc. It's going to come through chemistry... in short, the development of new powder technologies or the ability to 'pack' cartridges in new ways with powder. Think 3D printing your powder charge into a case, not trickling it in through a funnel. And think 'lenses' in powder, not a uniform stick or flake or ball.
When that sort of thing comes about, there will need to be barrels to contain the charges, rifling to control the bullet and materials to allow 'real' barrel life at the velocities that IMHO, are coming. Are structured barrels part of that future? Probably. In some applications.
Someone earlier talked about rifles becoming basically like mortars and small artillery pieces. Yes. That is right on! That is what the modern ELR game is all about. Thus the use of prism's and other devices to basically allow you to superelevate a rifle and loft a projectile (predictably) into a target. That is until chemistry and other factors catch up to allow velocities that allow ELR shooting without having to turn your rifle into a trebuchet!
And don't count out electromagnetic 'launchers' either. Lots of money being spent there. That will negate all our fun reloading rooms, but spawn an amazing renaissance in projectile design.
It's what makes all of this fun. And why crapping all over the thread or a maker is just stupid. Or being done for a reason... ranging from just being a worthless troll to promoting their own technology at the expense of someone else. (which is why I have no use for the 'anti-tuner' folks, either). And I'll echo several others here to try the technology. Expensive? Meh... in this world, no. Until then, it's all opinion.
Anyway, I am off to go do something silly and worthless that falls into the "Because I can" category and continue stuffing an insane V8 into a little tiny Jeep.
Cheers and Happy New Year my fellow 'Hiders!
Sirhr
Folks here have brought up barrel tuners, tensioned barrels. Earlier are discussions of cryo processing, sandblasting, shot peening, heat soaking and myriad other approaches to increasing accuracy. Which is really increasing repeatability. Because there is a difference between accurate and repeatable. And the goal is to make a platform that is a combination of ammunition and gun (and shooter, but they're hard to make 100 percent repeatable) that is utterly repeatable. Another way of saying it is 'predictable.' In other words, given a set of circumstances the shooter will be able to place a round in an exactly predicted location with each shot.
All those approaches are valid on their own way. Camel guy brought up tensioned barrels. It's an approach and a valid one. So are barrel tuners. (More on that below.) So are hardening finishes and heat treatments and cryo.
But to what degree and in what combination? Well, if we'd figured that out, there would be no need for anyone to continue developing small arms past John Browning. Instead, ballistics science has been a driver of a huge number of technologies over the past 400+ years and that the spinoffs range from materials science to chemistry to computers.
I'll say that I know tuners work in a way. But it's my opinion (and it's just an opinion) that they are often used wrong. Put on thin barrels (like the old BOSS system) and intended to dial in a barrel that is not really suited in the first place for highly-repeatable shooting. Is it an invalid technology? Not at all! They work. But they aren't going to turn a deer rifle into an AI any more than a new trigger or a strip of canvas stretched over the barrel.
So argument about 'this works, this is snake oil' aren't helpful. The answer is that some combination of 'all of the above' is going to work in this or that application. Want a utterly stable barrel for a bench gun? Make it 3" in diameter and mount it on rails bolted to a concrete plinth. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for PRS. Want to get 10,000 FPS? Dooable... but you need a barrel the length of a room with stepped charges set off by computer. Fast! Yup. Practical? Yes, if your goal is to determine how things perform at 10,000 FPS. Not useful for varmint hunting.
Does a structured barrel have value? Sure. And slowly more people are finding out what that is. Is it for everyone? Even John Baker and owners say no. Why do I shoot one? Because I love bleeding edge stuff and think this is part of the future in some applications.
I'll make a prediction, though, and that is the 'real' future of ELR and similar is not going to be in magic bullets or new barrel technologies, etc. It's going to come through chemistry... in short, the development of new powder technologies or the ability to 'pack' cartridges in new ways with powder. Think 3D printing your powder charge into a case, not trickling it in through a funnel. And think 'lenses' in powder, not a uniform stick or flake or ball.
When that sort of thing comes about, there will need to be barrels to contain the charges, rifling to control the bullet and materials to allow 'real' barrel life at the velocities that IMHO, are coming. Are structured barrels part of that future? Probably. In some applications.
Someone earlier talked about rifles becoming basically like mortars and small artillery pieces. Yes. That is right on! That is what the modern ELR game is all about. Thus the use of prism's and other devices to basically allow you to superelevate a rifle and loft a projectile (predictably) into a target. That is until chemistry and other factors catch up to allow velocities that allow ELR shooting without having to turn your rifle into a trebuchet!
And don't count out electromagnetic 'launchers' either. Lots of money being spent there. That will negate all our fun reloading rooms, but spawn an amazing renaissance in projectile design.
It's what makes all of this fun. And why crapping all over the thread or a maker is just stupid. Or being done for a reason... ranging from just being a worthless troll to promoting their own technology at the expense of someone else. (which is why I have no use for the 'anti-tuner' folks, either). And I'll echo several others here to try the technology. Expensive? Meh... in this world, no. Until then, it's all opinion.
Anyway, I am off to go do something silly and worthless that falls into the "Because I can" category and continue stuffing an insane V8 into a little tiny Jeep.
Cheers and Happy New Year my fellow 'Hiders!
Sirhr
I assume many on this thread were born after Gerald Bull died and have no knowledge of his work. But the reference is pertinent to this discussion because his research was hindered by available funding. Hence the events leading to his death.
But limitations due to available funding have a more limiting effect for small private entities like TACOM. As a result, commercial advances occur at a much slower pace. But the lessons learned from the small entities that are willing to try new things frequently lead to new breakthroughs.
Failure (Experimental Falsification; Popper) and Methodological Skeptism (Decarte) are the necessary means to new discoveries.
I don't disagree. I'm merely pointing out that the following is posted on Berger's website about hybrid bullets......and Litz is the Head Ballistician for Berger.
So either, its not as cut and dry as some think, or they are leaving statements on their website their Head bullet guy doesn't agree with.
So either, its not as cut and dry as some think, or they are leaving statements on their website their Head bullet guy doesn't agree with.
Attachments
Litz asked what effect size actually matters, which is a fair question. Because barrels are the sample unit (not shots fired, which are a subsample) the drumbeat for statistical significance will take some time to complete (unless someone wants to contribute funding these experiments). Those criticizing structured barrels have suggested no clear experimental design other than a simple comparison between two barrels. What is the metric or metrics to be measured? And if we don’t know the variance for the proposed metrics to be compared, we have now way to estimated the required sample size for the proposed comparison. And all the “statisticians” should know that a sample size of one barrel per treatment (non-structured vs structured; all other parameters being equal) in this proposed comparison will detect nothing if the effect size is as small as they suggest.
Now I am not saying “don’t do it”, rather I am suggesting that without any preliminary data, and a tiny sample size, the proposed test may not yield strong evidence for either position. As such, it will likely take additional test.
Finally, any real experimental design should define how it will isolate the metrics/variables of interest, or partition nuisance variation if it can not be isolated (e.g., randomized block).
PS. For all the Central Limit Theorem fans, with limited sample size and an unknown distribution, we are wandering in the forest until we get addition samples (i.e. more barrels in each experimental unit).
Ok, flame away. But think about an actual experimental design.
Now I am not saying “don’t do it”, rather I am suggesting that without any preliminary data, and a tiny sample size, the proposed test may not yield strong evidence for either position. As such, it will likely take additional test.
Finally, any real experimental design should define how it will isolate the metrics/variables of interest, or partition nuisance variation if it can not be isolated (e.g., randomized block).
PS. For all the Central Limit Theorem fans, with limited sample size and an unknown distribution, we are wandering in the forest until we get addition samples (i.e. more barrels in each experimental unit).
Ok, flame away. But think about an actual experimental design.
I watched a YouTuber’s experiment on group sizes that had a power of like 0.068…. because the effect size was so small. But he has a large following and his minions now use his experiment as “proof.” Never mind batch to batch or lot to lot variation which encompasses literally all equipment used down to the firing pin spring.
Science doesn’t prove anything. It only gathers evidence and not all evidence is created equally. But since they figured out how to use Excel, now they think they have a seat at the table. Now his minions are running around using ANOVA and t-tests thinking they’re doing something.
There are way too many combinations of factors to come out of this with a generalization. But, local characterization is all that matters. What the user does with their rifles matters more so to them than it does me. I’m not shooting their rifle so I have no stake in their claims and that’s ok.
Our community (shooters), don't really understand scientific principles, statistics, and scientific test designs and implementation.
It's why many so-called "tests", lately for me it's tuner testing, really irks me.
People love to draw dispositive conclusions from very small sample sizes, and tests that were never properly designed for what they want to test.
Hey, if you think it works for you, then go for it. It's your rifle. Shoot it and enjoy it. Just be careful about what claims you make, because most likely your conclusions are pretty flawed (not speaking to anyone specifically here, just in general).
How about a permutational paired sample test (e.g., chamber a barrel and fire before and after structure machining)? It would be non-parametric and would utilize available sample size more efficiently (still need more barrels even in a BACI design).
However, I agree that comments from barrel owners will eventually give us some information.
However, I agree that comments from barrel owners will eventually give us some information.
I'm not up to speed on the manufacturing process, so I apologize if this is common knowledge. Can a barrel be structured after chambering?
Would be interesting to chamber a 1.250 or 1.350 blank.....put it through some paces, then structure the barrel and see what changes. It obviously wouldn't be a perfect experiment, but would be interesting to see.
Would be interesting to chamber a 1.250 or 1.350 blank.....put it through some paces, then structure the barrel and see what changes. It obviously wouldn't be a perfect experiment, but would be interesting to see.
On their website Taccom claims that structured barrels provide the following advantages:
– Recoil reduction
– Flatter SD
– Free velocity potential
– Free BC potential
– Reduced mirage
– Minimal load development
– Improved barrel life
But no specifics as to how much of any of these should be expected.
Recoil reduction, increased velocity, decreased SD, increased BC, and improved barrel life seem like they would be pretty easy to demonstrate against a control, even with a small sample of rifles in a couple of common calibers.
The skeptic in me can't help but wonder if the lack of such an example is an answer in itself.
– Recoil reduction
– Flatter SD
– Free velocity potential
– Free BC potential
– Reduced mirage
– Minimal load development
– Improved barrel life
But no specifics as to how much of any of these should be expected.
Recoil reduction, increased velocity, decreased SD, increased BC, and improved barrel life seem like they would be pretty easy to demonstrate against a control, even with a small sample of rifles in a couple of common calibers.
The skeptic in me can't help but wonder if the lack of such an example is an answer in itself.
Last edited:
Yea that's not doing themselves any favors.
@Tx_Aggie you are not out of line being skeptical (others included). See post #001. But you are a ways from home (Gig’em).
So which variables likely have the largest effect size, and are easiest to measure? @John Baker ought to have knowledge and input on this question. Regardless, that is precisely the questions needed to develop an experimental design. KISS should be maintained when possible (as per Occam). Still need preliminary estimates of variance for any meteric/variables to be collected to estimate sample size for given beta and alpha. Then think through the methodology to identify nuisance variables and how to standardize procedure, and whether to measure or partition nuisance variables.
So a lot of information is needed before a real experiment can be assembled. But I hope TACOM will get there given some time. Remember @John Baker responded to inquires here at the start, and is still responding today. Some while I am an old champion of skepticism, I am also not going to hound anyone that is willing to entertain questions from SH members (tough room indeed).
The claims are broad and the available data to back it up is currently unavailable to the public. But I am patient.
Cheers and Happy New Year to all.
So which variables likely have the largest effect size, and are easiest to measure? @John Baker ought to have knowledge and input on this question. Regardless, that is precisely the questions needed to develop an experimental design. KISS should be maintained when possible (as per Occam). Still need preliminary estimates of variance for any meteric/variables to be collected to estimate sample size for given beta and alpha. Then think through the methodology to identify nuisance variables and how to standardize procedure, and whether to measure or partition nuisance variables.
So a lot of information is needed before a real experiment can be assembled. But I hope TACOM will get there given some time. Remember @John Baker responded to inquires here at the start, and is still responding today. Some while I am an old champion of skepticism, I am also not going to hound anyone that is willing to entertain questions from SH members (tough room indeed).
The claims are broad and the available data to back it up is currently unavailable to the public. But I am patient.
Cheers and Happy New Year to all.
When you make some bold claims like Baker does, the burden is on the claimant to prove it. I already offered to do testing (if he supplies barrels and ammo) and we can see if his claims are bullshit or not.
Also why is int he a commercial supporter? Hell RIO/Fenix/Dave is and he makes shit in his shed. If he can afford it a guy peddling $1500 barrels sure as hell can.
Also why is int he a commercial supporter? Hell RIO/Fenix/Dave is and he makes shit in his shed. If he can afford it a guy peddling $1500 barrels sure as hell can.
Basically folks, this is not the “Bear Pit” and a business owner that is willing to answer questions here in good faith should be treated accordingly.
Not saying you have to agree or abandon valid deductive skepticism. I am saying decorum is expected.
As such, debate away.
Not saying you have to agree or abandon valid deductive skepticism. I am saying decorum is expected.
As such, debate away.
I don’t think I have made any “bold” claims? I do think simple comparisons often yield limited inference (at least in my experience).
Further I think your offer was good and genuine, so no complaint there from me. But I do warn that you should evaluate results with an eye on the sample size and other variables (accounted for or not). And additional information should be welcome by all.
A commercial supporter? Perhaps. But I would assume that Mr. Baker has to determine whether his time on SH is a benefit to his business? I have an opinion, but that doesn’t mean anything. If the mods or Frank differ, they will let John know.
And DBD I agree with your offer, and your skepticism, but I have not taken any position either way. I generated the thread to make it known to members with gunsmithing and/or engineering expertise. But at the moment all we have is anecdotal evidence offered by members who have purchased a barrel, and the information provided by TACOM. That does not mean it is not interesting.
