Bad Throat/Barrel?
- Thread starter Boss334OP
- Start date
You just seemed to be getting a bit hostile/defensive, thereby ratcheting things up a notch. My comment wasn't just to you, but also to others to take it down a notch. There's valid comments on both sides.
Until you hear back from the producer, this is all mental masturbation, that is just begging for a heated debate.
Wasn't reffering to you.
FYI: No, not first borescope. Had a Hawkeye at the side hustle. But yes first digital. Pics suck, I am aware. But a lot of this is visible to the naked eye, just easier to picture with the tools available.
Were it I, I'd wait to hear back from the manufacturer. They'll likely ask you to shoot it first.
I think you're right and justified to contact them, before shooting it though. Just in case it doesn't shoot.
That being said, like others have posted, I've seen many a chamber that had a throat that looked like shit, but shot like a house on fire.
Sometimes ignorance is bliss...unless there's a problem.
Hence why topics like this usually have a habit of turning into a shit show pretty fast. Context is everything.
I think you're right and justified to contact them, before shooting it though. Just in case it doesn't shoot.
That being said, like others have posted, I've seen many a chamber that had a throat that looked like shit, but shot like a house on fire.
Sometimes ignorance is bliss...unless there's a problem.
Hence why topics like this usually have a habit of turning into a shit show pretty fast. Context is everything.
Your making your own assumptions on what I meant. Not taking the words at face value.
Again, show me where I made the claim it wouldn't shoot. You can't. It isn't there. There is a visible issue with the barrel and I am gethering data on what impact it may or may not have. Read it again
Again, show me where I made the claim it wouldn't shoot. You can't. It isn't there. There is a visible issue with the barrel and I am gethering data on what impact it may or may not have. Read it again
So I gotta say the Video was a little blurry but you can see that shits not right with this chambering and just my opinion Id send it back if it were a $350 Barrel or a $700 Barrel. I'm also a firm believer like others in the borescope is just a tool not the barrel Bible, If it shoots good leave it (To an extent), all these but that throat looks crooked as fuck from what I can see with what's been presented. Again I know a lot of guys will have a different opinion and that's fine too but any of the gunsmiths I use hand me a barrel that's not right I'm handing it right back to them.
Guys. Probably best to let this one percolate a while before responding more.
Let's see what the manufacturer has to say.
Let's see what the manufacturer has to say.
Your pistons aren't cut correctly? Anyone have a better analogy?
Oh
So your barrel is missing parts?
Fact is, you have no evidence it doesn’t shoot, because you haven’t shot it. You have an assumption that it won’t.
What the fuck did people do before borescopes? They fuckin’ shot and found out!
Are we done nit picking comments yet?
As mentioned before, I think it best to let this one lay for awhile. Do I need to be more blunt? Because I can be...
Read it again. The part is obviously out of spec. The question is how how much and how will it impact accuracy. Never did I say I assumed it wouldn't shoot.
1. They rolled their eyes at the $1,200.00 bill for a Hawkeye, spent their hard earned money on a Dillon 650 instead and shot the rifle.
2. They gleefully broke out their credit cards when Teslong came out with their $50.00 borescope.
Care to guess when/where the problems started ?
True, but it is visible in both...
This isn't scratches or lint we are talking about here...
I sometimes wonder if a borescope is more a curse, than a benefit.
Don't own one, probably never will.
Just a bore light.
Would be curious to know what the barrel in question groups like.
Don't own one, probably never will.
Just a bore light.
Would be curious to know what the barrel in question groups like.
Here is how I look at borescopes…
I can shove a tube with a camera up my ass and call it a colonoscopy, but I’m not a doctor, so I don’t know what the fuck a cancer spec is vs dried shit.
If someone with a trained eye and understanding of metal has a bore scope, then I would take their word.
That said, I use one… only to see the throat and keep down on carbon rings.
I’d wait for the smith to get back to you. I’m sure they will make it right.
I can shove a tube with a camera up my ass and call it a colonoscopy, but I’m not a doctor, so I don’t know what the fuck a cancer spec is vs dried shit.
If someone with a trained eye and understanding of metal has a bore scope, then I would take their word.
That said, I use one… only to see the throat and keep down on carbon rings.
I’d wait for the smith to get back to you. I’m sure they will make it right.
Send it back. I don't care if it is a freebie or costs a million dollars, that is BAD.
Agreed, which is why I posted it here... To hopefully get an expert to look at it. Still hoping.
By the way whats with the teslong hate? I have one it works perfectly. Crystal clear images. I use it primarily to align gas blocks on my gas guns. But I also check out the barrels for the lulz. Its not the borescopes fault most people don't have the knowledge to interpret what they are looking at. Not directed at OP.
I can sympathize with the OP- cameras always take shitty picture when you need them the most-- like the super hot topless girl at the concert that every pic looked like she had inner light coming out of her body and you couldn't see anything. Or the time I saw Bigfoot hotwiring a school bus- but they turned out dark and blurry. Damn you technology.
What a mess of a thread.... For the OP, No that is not right and there are several reason why that could have happened but a throat shouldn't look like that. Regardless of how well it shoots now it could cause issues later on.
For those that are saying "shoot it... it's no big deal.... throw away the bore scope" Please have 1 legitimate well known smith come on this thread and say they would be ok with sending that out the door knowing the throat looks like that. There are probably dozens on this forum. I'd like to see just 1 say "Yup, I'd be ok with that chamber job."
For those that are saying "shoot it... it's no big deal.... throw away the bore scope" Please have 1 legitimate well known smith come on this thread and say they would be ok with sending that out the door knowing the throat looks like that. There are probably dozens on this forum. I'd like to see just 1 say "Yup, I'd be ok with that chamber job."
So, is anybody actually arguing that an non-concentric reaming of the lead is acceptable?
Im rather w @MarinePMI…OP should wait to hear back from the smith/manf and that’s that.
So, if he shoots it and it shoots like crap…but he used it…would he not undermine his claim that it wasn’t reamed right? You shoot it, you buy it? Maybe?
Im rather w @MarinePMI…OP should wait to hear back from the smith/manf and that’s that.
So, if he shoots it and it shoots like crap…but he used it…would he not undermine his claim that it wasn’t reamed right? You shoot it, you buy it? Maybe?
Have to agree with you guys to a degree. It's like looking at that mole in the mirror and wondering if it's cancerous. There are obvious problems, and then there are things you think are problems that are not problems.fukr......beat me to it.
Yes, everyone who has suggested he shoot it is saying that this is acceptable.
Yes, literally everyone that saw the picture and said throw away the borescope or blamed the borescope. If the answer from the smith/manf is anything other than an apology and a free return shipping label offering a replacement or complete refund it's the wrong answer.
What many here seem to fail to realize is that not all accuracy issues appear immediately but can appear later on. If a problem is that super obvious there is no reason to "give it a try".
Hard to say whether it's concentric from a video, but normally a chamber is going to have some texture. This looks more rough than I normally like, but again, it's hard to tell from a video. I usually like to finish chambers anywhere between 300 - 350 grit, so there is going to be some texture in the chamber.
You don't want a mirror finish inside that chamber because brass has to be able to grip the chamber walls as it fireforms.
That scratch in the chamber doesn't look promising, and though I consider myself a hobby machinist, the last time that I had a large scratch like that in the chamber, it was because I got impatient with the reamer and plunged a little deeper than I wanted.
Send a video to the mfg. and see what they say.
You don't want a mirror finish inside that chamber because brass has to be able to grip the chamber walls as it fireforms.
That scratch in the chamber doesn't look promising, and though I consider myself a hobby machinist, the last time that I had a large scratch like that in the chamber, it was because I got impatient with the reamer and plunged a little deeper than I wanted.
Send a video to the mfg. and see what they say.
I agree, I also know a rifle might not show faults at 100 yards, but at or near transonic it will be so inconsistent you’ll not even see a dust signature on some shots. Sometimes a lot closer than that.
Tell me why it wouldn’t.
Muzzle exit pressures can affect BC and transonic transition ranges, so why wouldn’t a off set bullet engraving do the same?
If we’re not supposed to worry about a offset chamber, then why do we worry about .005” run out?
Last edited:
There’s so many things that begin to materially impact a bullet’s flight path in the last 10-15% of its supersonic flight envelope through transonic, id be curious as to how you would trace it to the chamber if it groups at 100m and holds that group at, say 400m.
If the OP gets the “ok” to fire the rifle from the barrel manufacturer, id group it at 100 and if it prints like it should, take it to distance to see what happens.
It would be very hard to do, maybe Doppler would track it, but that would require two barrels since you can’t cut the chamber straight and gather data then cut it off set. That would be a flawed test.(although that data wouldn’t be worthless). You can track various exit pressures with different powders and see the yaw introduced out of the muzzle, different crowns, different muzzle devices etc. So I can quickly see a offset chamber would introduce yaw early on, but still not noticed at 100 yards. That could be tracked with Doppler as well.
Then there’s tolerance stack, with bad run out, bad chamber and bad load development. That’s a whole other can of worms, you would need to eliminate as much as that as possible.
As we all try to do.
Last edited:
LOL, had a similar issue with a BA barrel, so before I shot it I sent borescope pics to the MFG.
They sent me a label to send the barrel to them for inspection after a few weeks they emailed
me that this was not typical of their products they will replace the barrel and that was that.
Also had a RPR 6mm creed barrel that the throat was cut so off center it was impossible to
measure where the bullets touched the lands. I said screw it and tried it, barrel shot in the three's and four's
with slapped together test ammo, so I shot the snot out of it. It was a laser.
They sent me a label to send the barrel to them for inspection after a few weeks they emailed
me that this was not typical of their products they will replace the barrel and that was that.
Also had a RPR 6mm creed barrel that the throat was cut so off center it was impossible to
measure where the bullets touched the lands. I said screw it and tried it, barrel shot in the three's and four's
with slapped together test ammo, so I shot the snot out of it. It was a laser.
