Gunsmithing Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

[BlackOps Tech]

There's been a lot of debate surrounding barrels that are wrapped with Carbon Fiber. The claims are that they dissipate heat faster, last exponentially longer than non-wrapped barrels and are just plain "magic."

I'm of the opinion that Carbon Wrapped barrels have their place on lighter weight rifles that are used in applications where long strings of fire are not present, such as hunting rifles, where group dispersion is not a problem. But when they're marketed to missions where U.S. lives are at stake, I take issue with it.

About a year ago, I and one other individual cross sectioned a Proof Research barrel, and we were astounded by what we saw. Clearly, the claims of heat dissipation, extended life, etc., certainly didn't line up with sound Engineering practices.

I've attached a video here of a Proof Research barrel mounted to a 50 cal MG. As I understand it, the claims were that under extended fire, the barrel would dissipate heat so quickly that at the end of the string, you could grab the barrel with your hand. However, after roughly 23 or so rounds, epic failure. There's a large pile of brass from the conventional barrel. Heat readings were taken to compare the two barrels and ultimately to test the very tall claims that were being made.

Proof Melting Barrel

 

[gixxerk8]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

That was after 23 rounds? I'd say epic failure

 

[bohem]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

According to one loudmouth from "Proof", as was blatantly stated to me (while jabbing his finger in my face), they named the company "Proof" because they have "Proof" that it works.

That company is a group of scheisters IMO.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gixxerk8</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That was after 23 rounds? I'd say epic failure </div></div>

Yep. Calculate the cyclic rate and you're looking at just a few seconds to melt down.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to one loudmouth from "Proof", as was blatantly stated to me (while jabbing his finger in my face), they named the company "Proof" because they have "Proof" that it works.

That company is a group of scheisters IMO. </div></div>

I remember that night....the arrogance was overwhelming. Little did he know at the time, he was wagging his finger in the face of an Engineer that deals with their chosen material for a living. Another epic fail.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: C. Dixon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lovely.

Now I get to explain to my dead customers poor widow that her late husband dropped almost 2K in barrels for nothing.

This should be a pleasant phone call. . .

As of this moment forward LRI will not be fitting anymore charcoal wrapped tomater stakes on actions.

C. </div></div>

Sorry to have to break it to you this way Chad, but I'm sure your stance going forward will be appreciated in the long run. After chambering one of these things and conducting a heat dissipation test, I made the same policy.

After cross sectioning a $900 barrel, I was a bit astonished at the brazen marketing approach. Overall, the marketing doesn't line up with credible claims.

 

[bohem]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlackOps Tech</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to one loudmouth from "Proof", as was blatantly stated to me (while jabbing his finger in my face), they named the company "Proof" because they have "Proof" that it works.

That company is a group of scheisters IMO. </div></div>

I remember that night....the arrogance was overwhelming. Little did he know at the time, he was wagging his finger in the face of an Engineer that deals with their chosen material for a living. Another epic fail. </div></div>

I printed out the patent disclosure and brought it in to show some of our really deep-dive tech experts in the field. We all had a good laugh about it, one of the best comments was

"Between this and the perpetual motion machines that somehow get through the US Patent office it's little wonder why the USPtO is the butt of so many european jokes"

 

[LibertyArms]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

I installed two on a few rifles, did one on a personal rifle. The barrel in my opinion did disapate heat better on a 308 bolt gun, or quite possibly retained it well enough that i could not feel it ?, but when after 11 rounds the accuraccy went crazy. The carbon fiber became unwound, an i could essentially spin the carbon on the barrel by hand. Barrel was replaced, and used on a different rifle, muzzle was threaded, and was used for 226 runds,carbon came loose at the muzzle again. Havent used another one to date.

 

[MikeeBooshay]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

FWIW, there is a shop in Houston that sells a lot of these.

We have had a few of these rifles out to various sportsman shooting clinics. Not one, none, has made the week without issue. It may be "OK" for a rarely shot, mostly carried mountain rifle, but why? There are much better alternatives available, using proven technology.

Haven't seen one hold up yet to 200 rounds of shooting.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LibertyArms</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I installed two on a few rifles, did one on a personal rifle. The barrel in my opinion did disapate heat better on a 308 bolt gun, or quite possibly retained it well enough that i could not feel it ?, but when after 11 rounds the accuraccy went crazy. The carbon fiber became unwound, an i could essentially spin the carbon on the barrel by hand. Barrel was replaced, and used on a different rifle, muzzle was threaded, and was used for 226 runds,carbon came loose at the muzzle again. Havent used another one to date. </div></div>

Heat dissipation from a Carbon Wrapped barrel is not possible with current technology. There's all this arrogant guff about the epoxy and the type of fiber and all this other magic stuff.

The big test on the part of POOF was to show a layman that a few rounds could be fired and you could then grab the barrel....trying to sell the idea that the barrel dissipates heat so quickly that you'll never feel it. In all actuality, they've created the Stanley Thermos of rifle barrels, because the heat is trapped inside.

Frankly, if the barrel dissipated heat as quickly as they claim, you'll feel heat on the outside, which is where you want it. Otherwise, what you see in the video is imminent.

Without the ability to transfer heat directly to ambient through the natural course of what physics dictates, there will be no transfer. If the heat could follow the minute gaps in the path of winding, the barrel would dissipate heat (with the type of CF being used).

It's all snake oil at this point.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: C. Dixon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlackOps Tech</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: C. Dixon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lovely.

Now I get to explain to my dead customers poor widow that her late husband dropped almost 2K in barrels for nothing.

This should be a pleasant phone call. . .

As of this moment forward LRI will not be fitting anymore charcoal wrapped tomater stakes on actions.

C. </div></div>



Sorry to have to break it to you this way Chad, but I'm sure your stance going forward will be appreciated in the long run. After chambering one of these things and conducting a heat dissipation test, I made the same policy.

After cross sectioning a $900 barrel, I was a bit astonished at the brazen marketing approach. Overall, the marketing doesn't line up with credible claims. </div></div>


What sucks is the guy (now dead as the result of a plane crash in the CA desert) bought all his stuff ahead of ever speaking with me. Parts just started showing up in my shop. They've sat around now for almost a year. About two months ago I started getting emails/phone calls from his wife/brother inquiring about status.

As a rule, I stick with "tried/true" stuff. This was a customer hell bent on thawing out his Visa card with little regard for what actually works.

Just a chitty deal all the way around because now I'm having to explain this to a family as they are trying to move on with their lives. </div></div>

Sounds like it. Not that it'll help you now, but if you find yourself needing to put the rifle together to sell for the family, I have a rack full of Bartlein barrels in 6.5, .30 and .338.

You say the word and I'll donate one to the cause.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mikee Booshay</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FWIW, there is a shop in Houston that sells a lot of these.

We have had a few of these rifles out to various sportsman shooting clinics. Not one, none, has made the week without issue. It may be "OK" for a rarely shot, mostly carried mountain rifle, but why? There are much better alternatives available, using proven technology.

Haven't seen one hold up yet to 200 rounds of shooting. </div></div>

My findings have shown that the barrel is good for two shots and then a ten minute cool down. Otherwise, you'll see group dispersion that gets larger as the barrel heats up on the inside.

 

[LRI]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Mike,

I just edited my last post because I had convinced myself that I knew what I was talking about. (a dangerous thing for Chad)

Using my "pink belt" Google Foo:

While I don't personally care for these barrels all that much this publication does present an interesting opposing view.

This is a PDF download. I checked it and it's safe. Happy reading germs.

Thermal Conductivity Characterization of Composite Materials:

 

[cmh2007]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LibertyArms</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I installed two on a few rifles, did one on a personal rifle. The barrel in my opinion did disapate heat better on a 308 bolt gun, or quite possibly retained it well enough that i could not feel it ?, but when after 11 rounds the accuraccy went crazy. The carbon fiber became unwound, an i could essentially spin the carbon on the barrel by hand. Barrel was replaced, and used on a different rifle, muzzle was threaded, and was used for 226 runds,carbon came loose at the muzzle again. Havent used another one to date. </div></div>

Ok, the real question is how hot does a barrel get after 10 or 15 rounds? Carbon fiber is an insulation piece, but the down fall is that the epoxy which is heat cure is very susceptible to heat and breakdown there from. Basicly from talking with high end fly rod makers, carbon can only take about 400-500* heat for no more than about 30-40 seconds, less if its thin, before it completely breaks down the resin, and it looses all strength and stability.

My question is why put something like an epoxy base substance on something that will easily exceed the heat the epoxy breaks down.

 

[bohem]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: seaaggie</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LibertyArms</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I installed two on a few rifles, did one on a personal rifle. The barrel in my opinion did disapate heat better on a 308 bolt gun, or quite possibly retained it well enough that i could not feel it ?, but when after 11 rounds the accuraccy went crazy. The carbon fiber became unwound, an i could essentially spin the carbon on the barrel by hand. Barrel was replaced, and used on a different rifle, muzzle was threaded, and was used for 226 runds,carbon came loose at the muzzle again. Havent used another one to date. </div></div>

Ok, the real question is how hot does a barrel get after 10 or 15 rounds? Carbon fiber is an insulation piece, but the down fall is that the epoxy which is heat cure is very susceptible to heat and breakdown there from. Basicly from talking with high end fly rod makers, carbon can only take about 400-500* heat for no more than about 30-40 seconds, less if its thin, before it completely breaks down the resin, and it looses all strength and stability.

My question is why put something like an epoxy base substance on something that will easily exceed the heat the epoxy breaks down. </div></div>

You are 100% correct in your concerns and if you watch the clip posted above, the goo that's dripping from the seams on the barrel wrap is burning resin.


Chad, that report is very good, on the second page you see the focal of the failure mode here:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thermal conductivity of Carbon/Vinyl ester composite is almost twice the conductivity in transverse and four times greater than through-the-thickness direction.</div></div>

The "in plane" and "transverse" directions on this fiber wrapped barrel can be realized as the axial and angular direction around the barrel respectively. The additive brings up the conductivity but nowhere near the 200%/400% numbers quoted and the conductivity compared to regular metallic component (SS in this case) is still FAR less.

Now, based on the numbers quoted in the abstract:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Results showed that E-glass/Vinyl ester samples exhibited in-plane and through-the-thickness thermal conductivity of 0.35±0.05 W/m K. Thermal conductivity of Carbon/Vinyl ester composite is almost twice the conductivity in transverse and four times greater than through-the-thickness direction. Addition of 10 wt%, 12.5 wt% of graphite powder additive in neat vinyl ester resin increased the conductivity by nearly 88%, 170% respectively.</div></div>

The E-glass is 0.35 w/m-K +/-0.05 W/m-K
CFRP is 200% and 400% of that, so 0.7 and 1.4 W/m-K respectively.

Let's give that the benefit of the doubt here and use the 1.4 W/m-K for the next step.

From MatWeb for 416R Crucible Steel

Thermal Conductivity 25.1 W/m-K
@Temperature 93.0 °C

So the 416R SS conducts heat at (25.1/1.4) times greater rate, or 17.93 times.

Let's throw in the additive to increase conductivity at 170% and you're down to 17.93/1.7 = 10.54 TIMES greater, that's 1054% better conductivity than the CFRP referenced in the MS thesis that Chad posted.

The through thickness conduction of heat is the issue that we are all discussing here, it "feels cool" to the touch because of what Mike said, they built a thermos. The heat cannot go from the inside to the outside, which is the through-thickness direction (radial component).

And since the heat does very poorly in the radial direction then the fibers not at the inner mold line (at the steel to CFRP interface) rely on the resin to conduct heat in the radial direction in order to conduct it along the fibers.

These are not the only things at play here, but it's rough to argue with the numbers above.

 

[E. Bryant]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

I've spent some time doing thermal calculations for high-performance electric motors with integrated controllers (think of a servo motor driving a hydraulic pump and bolted to the outside of a transmission or differential that is operating at 150C, and you've got the idea). Heat was always a major problem. Here is what I learned:

1) If you have something sitting in "still" (unmoving) air, the thermal resistance of the air/sink boundary is the main obstacle to conducting heat. Dicking around with material composition between the source of the heat and the air/sink boundary has moderate effect. Of course, moving from a good conductor (metal) to a poor conductor (composite) does not improve matters one bit, and to think otherwise is to be completely ignorant of physics.

2) Getting the air moving just a bit (a few m/s) is of enormous benefit. If you can design the part such that natural convection creates this airflow, great; unfortunately, rifle barrels (and whatever fluting shapes are typically cut into them) are not oriented properly to create convection... unless someone is using a lot more hold-over than I do

3) Heat transfer via radiation is not going to be a significant contributor at temperatures around 100C, so part color is a very small influence on its thermal performance (note that this is true only to the extent that you don't mount the part in "view" of a radiant heat source, in which case some heat transfer in the opposite direction can occur).

If someone wants to prove the thermal performance of a carbon-wrapped barrel, then I would suggest that they either thermocouple the barrel at a variety of depths (none of this surface-temperature bullshit), or at the very least go perform some thermal FEA modeling with ANSYS or similar software. With proper assumptions, I've seen thermal FEA obtain accuracy of less than 1C on a motor that had maximum internal temps of 135C, so it's a pretty powerful tool in the hands of a trained and experienced user.

 

[bohem]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If someone wants to prove the thermal performance of a carbon-wrapped barrel, then I would suggest that they either thermocouple the barrel at a variety of depths (none of this surface-temperature bullshit), or at the very least go perform some thermal FEA modeling with ANSYS or similar software. With proper assumptions, I've seen thermal FEA obtain accuracy of less than 1C on a motor that had maximum internal temps of 135C, so it's a pretty powerful tool in the hands of a trained and experienced user.</div></div>


This is what I do for a living (Abaqus structures with and w/o thermal effects). I went so far as to tell the PROOF guys this when they were trying to sell me on their hype and I unloaded on the guy when he started the finger waggling.

I even wrote it down and sketched the whole thing out. One of the guys said "I need that piece of paper"

"I need 50 more pieces of green paper that say $100USD on each of them. Then you can have this one"

He thought I was overpriced. Oh well.

 

[ddavis]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Note that as bad as carbon fiber may be for barrels, it is in fact much worse for suppressors:

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2818829

Multiply the heating problems a few times and put that in a pressure vessel. It ends in explosion. I like carbon fiber for canoe paddles. I have no faith in carbon fiber for anything around heat or guns.
-Dan

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

I want to say, isn't this all really old, and hasn't PROOF not only changed hands, but also brought in a lot of new people who are proven in this field.

Showing old ABS stuff, which was admittedly sub-par is a bit of a cheap shot. I looked at the Carbon Fiber stuff years ago and clearly it was not quite ready for prime time. Enter 2013...

At SHOT I went to the PROOF Demo, me, Caylen from Magpul, David Tubb, a lot of industry heavies where there. They held it at the indoor range in LV, (Range 702) and it was full of live fire opportunities.

I was there at least an hour before shooting the PROOF Precision Rifle and during the time there was a constant stream of people shooting. The line was never cold, and people where shooting it continuously. I stepped up and shot it after my wait and even shooting with the scope on 4x, I had all my rounds touching. There was a perfect clover leaf of 5 rounds on the paper. This was in no way a cold barrel.

Crunching number and talking historical, sure you can poke holes in anything. But real world results seem to contradict this thread.

Here recently (Last couple of days) Caylen posted this on Facebook,

Specs were:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">6.5 Creedmoor and Hornady 140 grain match factory ammunition. 5 shots at 100 yards.</div></div>

Hopefully Caylen will show up and give his real world experience with them as talking to him at SHOT, I know he has shot them a bunch. Proven by his FB posts.

This more than matches my experience, even the short lived SHOT SHOW Demo experience which had the rifle being shot over and over continuously. I have a picture of the Range floor from the demo, it is full of brass... I can post it as PROOF if you like.

I think there maybe more than meets the eye to reasoning behind this? As the guys at PROOF were very forthcoming and explained the history and the changes, which bring us to today.

 

[redirt78]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

I think anyone who ever bought a wrapped barrel wanted it to work. Good to see things moving forward

 

[bohem]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Frank-

I shot them in Jan 2012 at SHOT at the Defiance Live Demo.

A 308 and a 338 LM as well as several other conventionally barreled rifles.

The first 3 rounds from the 338LM touched at 200yd. Then the 4th was 1" away, the 5th was 1.3" away in a different direction.

SHots 6-10 made a second "group" that you would be hard pressed to cover with a grapefruit.

The 308 lasted for a full 5 shot group before it turned a little sideways, started to skid, then flipped out of control.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: C. Dixon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mike,

I just edited my last post because I had convinced myself that I knew what I was talking about. (a dangerous thing for Chad)

Using my "pink belt" Google Foo:

While I don't personally care for these barrels all that much this publication does present an interesting opposing view.

This is a PDF download. I checked it and it's safe. Happy reading germs.

Thermal Conductivity Characterization of Composite Materials:

</div></div>

Great post Chad and your approach is highly appreciated.

The bottom line is, it is possible for Carbon Fiber to conduct heat. I made components in the past for another industry out of Carbon Fiber and the purpose of the components was to draw heat away from the source of heat. I won't go into detail here, as I sincerely offered to help these guys in the past, as have others.

Unfortunately, it has become apparent that its more important to breed a product from arrogance than from credibility.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I want to say, isn't this all really old, and hasn't PROOF not only changed hands, but also brought in a lot of new people who are proven in this field.

Showing old ABS stuff, which was admittedly sub-par is a bit of a cheap shot. I looked at the Carbon Fiber stuff years ago and clearly it was not quite ready for prime time. Enter 2013...

At SHOT I went to the PROOF Demo, me, Caylen from Magpul, David Tubb, a lot of industry heavies where there. They held it at the indoor range in LV, (Range 702) and it was full of live fire opportunities.

I was there at least an hour before shooting the PROOF Precision Rifle and during the time there was a constant stream of people shooting. The line was never cold, and people where shooting it continuously. I stepped up and shot it after my wait and even shooting with the scope on 4x, I had all my rounds touching. There was a perfect clover leaf of 5 rounds on the paper. This was in no way a cold barrel.

Crunching number and talking historical, sure you can poke holes in anything. But real world results seem to contradict this thread.

Here recently (Last couple of days) Caylen posted this on Facebook,

Specs were:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">6.5 Creedmoor and Hornady 140 grain match factory ammunition. 5 shots at 100 yards.</div></div>

Hopefully Caylen will show up and give his real world experience with them as talking to him at SHOT, I know he has shot them a bunch. Proven by his FB posts.

This more than matches my experience, even the short lived SHOT SHOW Demo experience which had the rifle being shot over and over continuously. I have a picture of the Range floor from the demo, it is full of brass... I can post it as PROOF if you like.

I think there maybe more than meets the eye to reasoning behind this? As the guys at PROOF were very forthcoming and explained the history and the changes, which bring us to today. </div></div>

All valid points Frank and pictures of targets usually help, but this isn't related to just the ABS days. It's true that ABS and POOF have changed hands and that's all great, but it hasn't affected the overall credibility of the end product.

Basic Engineering principles haven't changed and the selling of companies and changing of company names have no affect on products that don't adhere to those principles. It's great that you saw small groups and I'm all for positive and productive debate and if I'm wrong about anything I've found as a result of controlled testing, I'll openly admit it here and offer an apology to POOF.

What we haven't heard is POOF step up and defend their product based on sound Engineering Principles. The tests that I've conducted aren't the only tests that have failed. There have been numerous third party tests, and none of them have yielded results that are inline with the tall claims that have been made. That's what this is about.

It seems to me, as a business owner, Engineer and someone that stands behind a product, a little odd that someone from POOF hasn't logged on to defend their product.

As I've stated in the past, I fully believe there's a place for Carbon Wrapped barrels, but when claims are made that can adversely affect our U.S. Servicemen and Law Enforcement officers, I take issue with it, as we all should. Let marketing be what it is, but let's not lose sight of the importance of credibility.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bohem</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frank-

I shot them in Jan 2012 at SHOT at the Defiance Live Demo.

A 308 and a 338 LM as well as several other conventionally barreled rifles.

The first 3 rounds from the 338LM touched at 200yd. Then the 4th was 1" away, the 5th was 1.3" away in a different direction.

SHots 6-10 made a second "group" that you would be hard pressed to cover with a grapefruit.

The 308 lasted for a full 5 shot group before it turned a little sideways, started to skid, then flipped out of control.

</div></div>

What a difference a year makes.... I clearly said, welcome to 2013.

Marketing claims aside, we all know everyone tends to exaggerate from time to time in order to sell a product. <span style="font-style: italic">(Think BCs from recent discussions)</span>

it appears to me they are actively putting their product in the hands of people to show the real world results and not 3rd party claims with very little to back it up, but talk.

I have no idea when you shot that video Mike or how many actual rounds caused it to melt, it shows the test after the fact, not before and during. If they are claiming outlandish performance with a .50 caliber M2, you'd have a point, I never heard that.

On the precision rifle side, things appeared to have changed. Not only management but actual guys putting this stuff together. I believe they did bring on new blood, beyond the old days. As I said, they have been pretty forthright to me about the direction they are going.

This is a bit more than 2, 5, or 10 rounds, and the barrel looked no worse for wear to me at the most recent Demo. What happened in 2012, i cannot speak of, but I can tell you what the scene looked like in 2013, as well I can tell you what Caylen has told me. I see no reason for him to exaggerate when it's just he and talking on the subject.

A room full of shooters, I think if things were amiss the buzz would have been making it way around. I heard nothing like this that night.

Like any business I am sure it is a growing process, there are peaks and valleys with anything.

Do I have a carbon wrapped barrel, no, am I interested in one, can't really say I need see a personal need. But I can say, this contradicts my experience and those of others I trust over the last several months. I am fully aware of the failures of the past, but was happy to take a look moving forward.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

All valid points Frank and I appreciate the opposing point of view.

I think at this point it's up to POOF. Some of the testing I mentioned earlier was sanctioned by POOF. Seems to me if there was indisputable PROOF from an Engineering and Data Collection perspective, they would have offered it up after the many remarks that have been made over a long period of time. You mentioned a change of hands and with it came a $10 million building and all sorts of testing capabilities, but there's still no proof of their claims.

A room full of shooters is one thing, but it didn't generate hard data that contradicts my findings or the findings of others (makes it seem like a waste to spend $10 million on a building if the best you can do is gather up a few shooters in Las Vegas). The video is just the tip of the iceberg and I'll withhold other findings until such time that POOF gets involved.

 

[bohem]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Forgive me for not holding my breath to see the miracle results over the last year. They have produced group pictures like that before and the brass at the feet picture was what the Defiance shoot looked like too. The only people that said anything less than stellar at the shoot I attended were myself and 2 other highly capable engineers familiar with composite materials.

I would love to see the technology work, but there's a lot of hurdles and I have a hard time believing that they fixed them all in 12 months. I will be happy to publicly redact my negative sentiment when I see a controlled test come together and prove me wrong with more than a few hand selected products.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Mike

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mentioned a change of hands and with it came a $10 million building and all sorts of testing capabilities, but there's still no proof of their claims.</div></div>

How long has it been up and running ? Not long I don't think ?

A $10m investment seems pretty substantial, are they working, trickling out information, or do they really not care what the internet has to say ? I have no answers, but this jives with what they said last month. The fact they are not racing to counter your claims here on SH really doesn't say or mean anything in the big picture ? For all I know what was being done last year is 180 degrees from this year.

How long has it taken you to get the .22 stuff up and running ?

If they were blitzing the media with all kinds of information and then doing nothing to back it up, I would agree, but I have not seen a blitz, nor was I given a hard sell. It was more a see for yourself approach and then some introductions to the guys who were responsible for the changes. Hardly worth the effort if you ask me beyond historical data that seems to be why they changed directions and made the investment.

"Ya we saw this and decided to bring in new blood take another direction, to include a $10m investment in a facility, people."

Guys going to that level rarely battle on the internet, and I did not get the impressions they were really that interested in what the internet had to say. It was more a re-introduction to Carbon Wrapped and then a look out for the future.

 

[Bloody_Tailgate]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Has anyone just simply stuck a temp sensor down the barrel after a string of shots and measured the temp? It seems like the easiest, most straight forward test.

2 barrels, same diameter, 1 carbon wrapped. Measure ambient temp of both (in bore). Shoot a 5 shot string (same load, same rate of fire). Measure temp (in bore) after string, and time duration till back at ambient temp.

Simple, straight forward, and impossible to argue.

Quite honestly I don't NEED to know the science behind it, just if it works or not.

 

[Woj8541]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Hello guys, I'd like to drop in here and provide my perspective on this debate. Please realize I'm not an engineer, nor a scientist. I'm a military sniper and precision rifle marksmanship instructor and consultant. All I can speak from is my experiences, and in the words of many engineers, doctors and scientists; you can't argue with results...

I was introduced to Proof Research quite recently and since have learned about the history of the company; its founder, old technology, new technology and its competitors. After learning the basics, I was invited to an event sponsored by Proof to test their products. I can say that not one representative from Proof Research conducted themselves in any other fashion but professional and polite, answering all questions without becoming defensive. Here are my experiences from the testing I completed. (I wasn't the only one present and there were several representatives in attendance from other government and defense agencies.)

The rifles I fired were: 16" .308 Win bolt rifle full taper, 24" .300 WM sendero taper, 26" .338 Norma Mag sendero taper, 16" .308 DGI mid-length, 16" suppressed 5.56 DGI carbine length. After zeroing all the rifles at 100 yards, we moved to the maximum distance the range allowed; 647 yards. The targets were steel plates and could be viewed through a remote camera system.

In order to test the validity of the heat dissipation claims I wanted to run the rifles hard and as hot as possible. Starting with the .308 bolt rifle I shot 50 rounds in a little under 12 minutes (approximately one round every 14 seconds). The group size ended up being roughly .2 mils, or 4.3 inches, just over .5 MOA. In 50 rounds there was no walk, no shift, nothing to indicate that barrel was overheated.

The .300 WM and the .338 Norma Mag proved to have almost identical results. Both had 50 rounds sent through them in roughly 12 minutes, and both printed 4.2"-4.5" groups. This is a fairly high rate of fire for a precision rifle and I established this guideline based off of my past history and experiences. Neither of the magnum calibers showed any signs of walking, shifting or anything else that would indicate an overheated barrel.

As for the carbon fiber material, IMHO there's a reason folks in the motorsports industry have been manufacturing brake rotors and pads from carbon fiber. I know for a fact that MotoGP bikes have been using that technology as early as 2000 and it made a marked improvement on brake fade through reduction of heat transfer back through the pads into the brake fluid. Can't argue with results…

All technology aside, another very valid point to be made is from a pure marksmanship view; you can't shoot an ultra-light rifle the same as you can shoot a traditional 15-20lb bolt rifle. The reduced weight causes the rifle's angle of jump to be much more pronounced and potentially inconsistent if the shooter isn't on top of the fundamentals and most importantly followthrough. You can't shoot a light weight rifle with free recoil like you can with a heavier rifle. I have tested this myself behind Proof guns and if you're not careful, you'll get fliers very similar to the ones others have been mentioning. The photos in the above post by Frank show the results. Yes, I know, it's 100 yards, but I've seen the same results at distance, solidifying my opinion that Proof Research has gotten it right, and it shows in their products.

To say that a company like Proof Research doesn't have a fully staffed engineering department is borderline absurd; I've seen their facility and its state-of-the-art. They have come a long way in technology and development. Another point I'd like to make is that the barrel depicted in the video in the first post in this thread isn't a Proof Research barrel, nor does Proof Research advertise or market a barrel that is rated for fully automatic fire, so IMHO that test doesn't validate any product that Proof Research is currently producing.
Based upon my experiences I intend on shooting several rifles fitted with Proof Research barrels this year at not only open enrollment courses but at military and law enforcement courses alike. I’ll also be using them to compete in the Competition Dynamics 24 Hour Sniper Adventure Challenge, among other matches. All I would suggest to readers is to understand that Proof Research is not what other carbon fiber wrapped barrel manufacturers are. These barrels and rifles are among the most consistent and accurate I’ve ever been behind.

 

[bohem]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Hi Caylen,

I appreciate the straightforward feedback you've provided, thank you.

There's one point that comes up here though which is erroneous in a few ways, and that is there are 2 different materials referred to here as "carbon fiber" and there performance characteristics are vastly different. I'll attempt to paint a quick picture of the history of carbon fiber brake rotor and flywheel material in motorsports and the results that can be argued with since it's not an apples to apples comparison, not even close.

To couch that, I've spent a few years as an engineer in motorsports prior to working in Aerospace. As of 2002 I started my career in engineering by working in motorsports, I moved to aerospace because I wasn't a fan of 40-45wk/year on the road for 60% of the pay.

That being said:

The CF used in brake rotors is a wholly different material than the stuff CFRP, where the RP stands for "Reinforced Polymer". The rotors are not made from that composite at all. The CF in brake rotors is CFR<span style="font-weight: bold">C</span> and it started life in the space program and then rotorcraft, aka helos, in the late 70s.

They were used in the rotor brake and the leading edges of the shuttle. Motorsports got a hold of it in the late 80's and started to see the staggering increases in performance due to 2 primary things:

1) Substantial decrease in weight of the rotor
2) Increased friction coefficient at high operating temps of the CFRC material

Here's the HUGE difference though, like I said above the CF in brake rotors is NOT CFRP, it is Carbon fiber reinforced Carbon.

There is no epoxy resin matrix in the stuff, it's quite similar to what the leading edge of the space shuttle is made from as opposed to what the skin panels on a 787 wing is made from.

This is where you can have an application that runs at brake rotor or ballistic re-entry temps is made possible. There is no resin to burn off at 300C/500F

The material is compression molded under intense heat for long periods of time. They are expensive bastards too, the LMP2 car that I worked on in the 2005 season cost $40k for a set of rotors... JUST the rotors. but anyway back on topic

There's another piece to that puzzle as well, where it is easy to find photos of a race car with glowing carbon rotors coming into a turn point, there was until recently precious little data as to the core temps of those rotors was generally unknown and through some very slick testing equipment some of the Formula 1 teams have worked to demonstrate that the core of the CFRC is actually pretty cool compared to the surface, it doesn't conduct heat particularly well (though it's a lot better than the CFRP is) and that the structural integrity of the disks is maintained because of the core strength.

Additionally, your point about reducing fade by using CF in the pads to reduce the heat transfer in the fluid supports my point from higher up in the thread that the material does not conduct heat well, it insulates against instead.

The Carbon material rotors run at 3000F+ when they're at full operating temp, the carbon fiber pads are helping the heat issue by acting as a thermal barrier (insulator) against heat transfer from the 3kF interface surfaces back to the piston and pads.

Again, you've gotten to shoot the "new" tech from Proof and I have not, but it is not appropriate to compare a CFR<span style="font-weight: bold">P</span> material to a CFR<span style="font-weight: bold">C</span> material other than the basic fiber material is from the same element.

 

[turbo54]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Caylen W</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....As for the carbon fiber material, IMHO there's a reason folks in the motorsports industry have been manufacturing brake rotors and pads from carbon fiber. I know for a fact that MotoGP bikes have been using that technology as early as 2000 and it made a marked improvement on brake fade through reduction of heat transfer back through the pads into the brake fluid. Can't argue with results… </div></div>

I have no dog in this fight, but I'd like to point out that brakes are made of carbon-reinforced carbon fibre (CRCF) because they are essentially impervious to heat, staying fade-free to 2000º. Carbon brakes do not have resin in them either, because the resin can't handle heat, hardly at all. Of course, the barrels in question are not CRCF, they are CFRP (carbon fibre reinforced plastic), and do in fact have epoxy resin as part of the substrate.

As the thermal conductivity of carbon is very low, there might be something to the above-mentioned fade-improvement by way of "reduction of heat transfer back through the brake pads into the brake fluid".

I think the "thermos" analogy mentioned above is a very apt description.

 

[Woj8541]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Ok, my apologies for making an incorrect statement, or trying to make an incorrect analogy. Thank you for the education, and I'll correct myself for future discussions. I'm no engineer and I always appreciate knowledge, especially from those in that field.

My main point here is that the current barrels from Proof Research perform exactly as advertised. I've seen it, which why I'm choosing to voice my opinon and experiences on the topic.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mike

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You mentioned a change of hands and with it came a $10 million building and all sorts of testing capabilities, but there's still no proof of their claims.</div></div>

How long has it been up and running ? Not long I don't think ?

A $10m investment seems pretty substantial, are they working, trickling out information, or do they really not care what the internet has to say ? I have no answers, but this jives with what they said last month. The fact they are not racing to counter your claims here on SH really doesn't say or mean anything in the big picture ? For all I know what was being done last year is 180 degrees from this year.

How long has it taken you to get the .22 stuff up and running ?

If they were blitzing the media with all kinds of information and then doing nothing to back it up, I would agree, but I have not seen a blitz, nor was I given a hard sell. It was more a see for yourself approach and then some introductions to the guys who were responsible for the changes. Hardly worth the effort if you ask me beyond historical data that seems to be why they changed directions and made the investment.

"Ya we saw this and decided to bring in new blood take another direction, to include a $10m investment in a facility, people."

Guys going to that level rarely battle on the internet, and I did not get the impressions they were really that interested in what the internet had to say. It was more a re-introduction to Carbon Wrapped and then a look out for the future. </div></div>

All I'm saying Frank is any other manufacturer in their position would publicly defend claims that were made publicly, who cares if it happens on the internet. I get it that you're mediating on their behalf, as its their choice to handle this their way (kinda like the "WARNING-Tactical Rifles" Thread"), but I'm just working to understand the logic of advertising something that violates sound Engineering Principles and then have those doing the advertising hide behind others that will fight their battle for them.

My mission here is to enable those in this community to make a better decision based on credible information that makes sense. We can debate the Internet and deny that the barrel in the video is from POOF and all sorts of other chatter that's designed to shift focus, such as testimonials depicted by little groups, but none of that stuff changes sound Engineering Principles.

 

[Woj8541]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Frankly, I don't see any attmept to shift focus from the orriginal topic. A video was posted depicting a barrel made by a different company using different technology that is being used now. Others have claimed in posts that the rifles they shot didn't hold groups due to inconsistencies with the carbon fiber wrapped barrels installed on their rifles. Those claims have been answered with hard evidence that the CURRENT technology being used is not the same technology as was used in manufacture of the barrels in the past.

It sounds to me like the questions your asking are delving into the realms of IP and potentially patent protected information, none of which will be answered in an open forum such as this. I would have to say there's a good reason why someone from Proof hasn't gotten on this forum to answer these questions.

Proof's products speak for themselves. I would expect to see them make quite an impact within the industry.

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Mike I am not warning anyone, not even in an implied fashion.

Proof is not a sponsor, not an advertiser so SH has no bone to pick, other than to say, it does not mimic my experience with either the company or the product. My first conversations with them were just prior to SHOT about going to the Demo. I went to several Demos that week, even showed up an hour late to a party Thursday night so I could shoot NV out in the cold when I could have been drinking. In fact the only company from SHOT I have done any business with has been McMillan, I ordered an Alias STAR Q, I have not ordered a Proof rifle or barrel.

I am not even being really argumentative about it, I just don't see it the same way you do, to include my conversations with Caylen on the subject, not to mention seeing his FB posts recently regarding the barrels. (accuracy is aways interesting)

I read a bit of your other post on the subject and noted one particular post, which made me go back and read both of these.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlackOps Tech</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JFComfort</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for sharing the information. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cegorach</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great information. It is something I have always been peripherally curious about. </div></div>

Thanks Guys. Although I wasn't surprised about the ability of a CF wrapped barrel to realistically "dissipate" heat, relatively speaking, I was impressed with accuracy.

I posted an accuracy report, but I deleted the post. I somehow smoked my SD card and couldn't post pics of the target, so I deemed the report a bit unfair to the ABS guys.

Although I won't cover the ABS CF barrel with our accuracy guarantee (five groups, five shots, group average of 3/8 MOA or smaller), I'll say that the ABS barrel more than outshines other CF barrels in the accuracy department. There is definite group dispersion as the barrel heats up, but if you're willing to spend $900, it's my opinion that the ABS barrel is great for lighter weight hunting rifles.</div></div>

It seems in the last few weeks, you're on a CF kick, okay fine, but I heard nothing to back up your assertions. Maybe last year at SHOT there was a hard press sell to guys like you, as well as others, but that was not the direction they went this year. It was not like that is all I'm saying, so the call outs sort of confused me a bit. (especially since they don't post here)

You've called them out engineering wise several times now and as I said, I don't think you'll get a response so why bother. They didn't seem to operate that way.

Mediate ... okay if you say so, if they were authorizing you to test stuff for them, you would know them better than I do. I honestly could not tell you their first names without looking it up. I went, saw, shot, inquired and continued on my merry way to the next party that night.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Caylen W</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Frankly, I don't see any attmept to shift focus from the orriginal topic. A video was posted depicting a barrel made by a different company using different technology that is being used now. Others have claimed in posts that the rifles they shot didn't hold groups due to inconsistencies with the carbon fiber wrapped barrels installed on their rifles. Those claims have been answered with hard evidence that the CURRENT technology being used is not the same technology as was used in manufacture of the barrels in the past.

It sounds to me like the questions your asking are delving into the realms of IP and potentially patent protected information, none of which will be answered in an open forum such as this. I would have to say there's a good reason why someone from Proof hasn't gotten on this forum to answer these questions.

Proof's products speak for themselves. I would expect to see them make quite an impact within the industry. </div></div>

Hi Caylen,
I'll start by thanking you for your service to our Country and I have the utmost respect for those that give of themselves so freely and ask for little to nothing in return.

I also appreciate you taking the time to offer your testimonial and doing so in such a professional manner. I enjoy sensible dialogue that has intelligence at it's core.

Now, about this wrapped barrel thing....Let's say that the claims are true that the barrel in the video is a different barrel that used different technology and all the other stuff in the past is a preponderance of evidence. Let's dive back to a time that, on this site and other sites, claims were made by individuals representing POOF that the barrels dissipate heat 300 times faster, last two to three times longer, are more rigid and so on (I can dig up the posts if you'd like). I think we can make this very simple, as it has nothing to do with wanting to know POOFs IP, as I already know how to make it work, so I see no value in their IP.

After washing away the video and assuming that no negative word has ever been spoken, and just considering the claims on this site alone, let's take a look at this link:

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2805766#Post2805766

You say that you've seen the results, but my point is, nothing has been offered that clearly invalidates the information in the Heat Test thread or any of the other independent heat dissipation tests that have been conducted. The data seems to completely disappear, only to have more claims and excuses of why the information relative to the claims alone (nothing to do with IP) has not been offered up.

If the barrels dissipate heat as fast as has been claimed, it isn't hard to do a comprehensive test, even without a $10 million facility and offer up the results. Frankly, this isn't rocket science.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mike I am not warning anyone, not even in an implied fashion.

Proof is not a sponsor, not an advertiser so SH has no bone to pick, other than to say, it does not mimic my experience with either the company or the product. My first conversations with them were just prior to SHOT about going to the Demo. I went to several Demos that week, even showed up an hour late to a party Thursday night so I could shoot NV out in the cold when I could have been drinking. In fact the only company from SHOT I have done any business with has been McMillan, I ordered an Alias STAR Q, I have not ordered a Proof rifle or barrel.

I am not even being really argumentative about it, I just don't see it the same way you do, to include my conversations with Caylen on the subject, not to mention seeing his FB posts recently regarding the barrels. (accuracy is aways interesting)

I read a bit of your other post on the subject and noted one particular post, which made me go back and read both of these.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BlackOps Tech</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JFComfort</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for sharing the information. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cegorach</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great information. It is something I have always been peripherally curious about. </div></div>

Thanks Guys. Although I wasn't surprised about the ability of a CF wrapped barrel to realistically "dissipate" heat, relatively speaking, I was impressed with accuracy.

I posted an accuracy report, but I deleted the post. I somehow smoked my SD card and couldn't post pics of the target, so I deemed the report a bit unfair to the ABS guys.

Although I won't cover the ABS CF barrel with our accuracy guarantee (five groups, five shots, group average of 3/8 MOA or smaller), I'll say that the ABS barrel more than outshines other CF barrels in the accuracy department. There is definite group dispersion as the barrel heats up, but if you're willing to spend $900, it's my opinion that the ABS barrel is great for lighter weight hunting rifles.</div></div>

It seems in the last few weeks, you're on a CF kick, okay fine, but I heard nothing to back up your assertions. Maybe last year at SHOT there was a hard press sell to guys like you, as well as others, but that was not the direction they went this year. It was not like that is all I'm saying, so the call outs sort of confused me a bit. (especially since they don't post here)

You've called them out engineering wise several times now and as I said, I don't think you'll get a response so why bother. They didn't seem to operate that way.

Mediate ... okay if you say so, if they were authorizing you to test stuff for them, you would know them better than I do. I honestly could not tell you their first names without looking it up. I went, saw, shot, inquired and continued on my merry way to the next party that night. </div></div>

Thanks Frank and I don't take it that way at all. I see our dialogue here (yours and mine especially) as a productive part of why I think the site is here. Maybe mediate was the wrong term, but I meant no disrespect to you.

I've positioned myself in cases like this to be as fair as possible. That's why I deleted the post after smoking my SD card and I had the Heat Test post locked so there would be no pile-ons, as my only intent is to be informative about what I find in my own shop....no different than Chad or the guys dialing in receivers to show the runout in areas of importance, etc., etc.

I understand that this is a controversial topic and I'm not working to make your life as the site owner difficult, but I believe that the community appreciates knowing when not to make mistakes that are directly related to their wallets. As I've stated, I appreciate the concept and I support the idea of what these barrels are, but I have trouble with tall claims that are misleading.

I'm glad that your experience has been positive and that you walked away from the demo appreciating what you saw, but for each one of those positive experiences, there are a considerable number of negative ones. There are guys that say their Tactical Rifles rifle shoots great, but how many do not?

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Mike

Wasn't 99% of the claims coming from Ranger1183, the guy who said he does not even work there anymore ?
( I don't think he worked there in any thing more than a minor capacity)

He was the only one I have found making any sort of claims, especially here. Like I said nobody directly from PROOF are on SH and have not posted any claims to my knowledge. I may have missed it, but he (Ranger1183) was the only one and he admittedly is not part of the company.

Now, I don't read the gun rags, there maybe claims made there, but like I said, there were no outlandish claims being made at their own demo at SHOT.

 

[Sniper Uncle]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

or the carbon fiber material, IMHO there's a reason folks in the motorsports industry have been manufacturing brake rotors and pads from carbon fiber. I know for a fact that MotoGP bikes have been using that technology as early as 2000 and it made a marked improvement on brake fade through reduction of heat transfer back through the pads into the brake fluid. Can't argue with results…

Actually, Caylen, you just kinda said here what those who do not believe the hype on CF Wrapped barrels are trying to say. Carbon Fiber is blocking the heat transfer from the pad to the oil, helping relieve brake fade. That is the point here, the CF Wrapping is insulating the barrel, not transferring heat faster.

 

[ggmanning]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

I have a Mike Rock carbon wrapped barrel. Picked it up on here from a group buy. It's a .223 1:8 and it shoots great. I don't give a crap about all the heat dissipation stuff. I wanted a lightweight barrel with a large contour to save save on weight and look right in a Manners T2. It fits the bill. I would only choose one for weight savings vs contour because I don't believe in magic. I will say to the touch the carbon barrel is cooler than a steel barrel for a given shot string but that may be conductivity vs dissipation.

 

[TwoGun]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

I've always had a problem with demonstration anything. It's easy (maybe I should saw not hard) to cherry pick a barrel that won't walk when it heats up. Most of my experience with the carbon wrapped barrels are from long range hunting rigs in magnum calibers. Of the guns I've heard feedback from, most will walk after the 2nd or 3rd shot. This isn't critical for most long range hunters as long as the cold bore is consistent (generally only a couple shots are necessary on accurate barrels). It's a mixed bag but most shooters have not been overly enthusiastic with the product (except when humping it).

It'll take more than a demo gun to convince many previous owners. But, there's always new customers born every minute.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lowlight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mike

Wasn't 99% of the claims coming from Ranger1183, the guy who said he does not even work there anymore ?
( I don't think he worked there in any thing more than a minor capacity)

He was the only one I have found making any sort of claims, especially here. Like I said nobody directly from PROOF are on SH and have not posted any claims to my knowledge. I may have missed it, but he (Ranger1183) was the only one and he admittedly is not part of the company.

Now, I don't read the gun rags, there maybe claims made there, but like I said, there were no outlandish claims being made at their own demo at SHOT. </div></div>


Maybe so, but I want to be mindful of diffusing the focus here. Did Clinton have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky? First he said no and then there was an attempt to define sexual relations and ultimately he had to admit it.

Ultimately, claims were made by POOF that performance of their barrels was specific to said claims and ultimately it was found by numerous credible sources that the barrels haven't lived up to the claims. Now we're getting to that stage of defining sexual relations as the relations pertain to POOFs claims.

The question remains, do the Carbon Wrapped barrels, regardless of when they were made, dissipate heat at a rate higher than non-wrapped barrels and do they last some period longer than non-wrapped barrels? All of this other stuff can go away completely and we can keep this topic incredibly simple and non-biased.

 

[jbell]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

All very intresting. I owned a very early ABS barrel in .243 that Mike @ ABS built on a 700sa. I traded for it just because I wanted to see if all the B.S. was true. I cleaned and inspected BA and installed in a stock that I had. I loaded up some basic known good loads fot the 243 and shot it. It would string pretty bad after just a few rounds, but cold the accuracy was good. I called Mike @ ABS and he almost begged me to send the barrel back for him to rewrap it with the "latest" wrap as this was one of his first barrels and things had changed. Well he had the barrel for several months before I got it back (I thought I would never see it again). When I got it back the wrap looked to be a totally different pattern, so something was changed. I used the same loads as before and shot it. This time it was getting cold up here in Maine. I observed 2 things:
1 the barrel was creating so much mirage after just a few shots I was a little shocked. I am used to what a conventional barrel will do in those temps and firing cadence, but this was quite a bit more.
2 the barrel no longer would string shots. Now granted I was not running the gun hard, but I was shooting it. I kept the rifle and put maybe 100 rounds threw it and found the accuracy was good, not fantastic but plenty good. I never had a issue with shot dispersion due to heat.

Now all this being said, I am of the opinion that it is a bit of a gimmick. It sounds very good in theroy. I am by no means as educated as some here, but I do know that steel is a pretty darn good conductor of about everything to include heat. If CF (of what ever type) was as good as it is being portrayed by some of a heat conductor then why are there no CF heat sinks? Oh well I dont think I need to be buying any more anytime soon. However I do enjoy learning about new products and seeing how they work. Who knows maybe they are on to something...

Good discussion guys. Thank you for sharing all your smarts.

 

[kortik]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Carbon fiber does work as heat insulation. Nothing you can do about low heat trasfer coeficient of composite materials like the ones discussed...

However, I do have a weird idea why, possibly, it may work, IF it is done correctly and is used for certain applications only:

1. Carbon sleeve around the barrel should help, in theory, with "general" mechanical stiffness of the barrel.

2. The same sleeve, insulating metal barrel from the outside, may actually contribute, SOMEWHAT, to "reducing" the distortion of the barrel associated with the heat, along with capacity of the barrel to take more heat.. What I mean is that barrels do not heat up evenly, is it possible that by actually insulating the heat transfer from the barrel into the air, the heat is "being pushed", or "re-directed" into the path of the least resistance, which, in this case of adding an additional insulation, would be the "traditionally coolest" part of the barrel, retaining the capacity to accept some additional heat and spread it more evenly along the length of the barrel.

I have no doubts that there is a limit here, and all this stuff should comply with a fine balance of various factors involved, but may be, for relatively low speed firing weapon like a bolt action hunting/target/sniper rifle, there is more good than bad.... Just an attempt to see some rational behind the actual heat insulation of the barrel, which carbon sleeve certainly provides...

 

[bohem]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Kortik-

The mechanical stiffness in #1 you commented about I don't feel will happen due to the elasticity constants for the materials being compared.

The bulk modulus of the carbon is between ~3-14 MSI depending on layup, fiber content, resin type, etc.

Aluminum is ~ 11MSI and Steel is ~29 MSI.

So AL is on par with the stiffest tape structures and Steel is 3-10x's stiffer for equal cross sections.

Now, specific stiffness (stiffness for a given weight) can potentially go up depending upon the bulk modulus of the fiber in the final state of whatever technology is being used, but it's not a guarantee.

In motorsports and aerospace when CFRP structure is referred to as "super stiff" it's because they can use such a large volume of material when compared to an equal mass of metallic structure. It's specific stiffness is higher but in reality fiber composite structures are much less stiff based when you only compare equal sections. Their stiffness to weight benefits allows for significant performance increases when the load path directions are considered and the fabric layup is tailored to take load where it is needed and not where the load doesn't exist.

I've thought about #2 as a potential and there is some merit to that idea. What concerns me there is that the heat conduction path is incredibly choked by the material removal, like having a 4 lane highway down to 1 lane with a road worker holding a "STOP" and "SLOW" sign.

All of this is good discussion, I really would love to see this technology become reliable. With the new information coming out about Proof now I'm actually excited to see a full test push forward to in a rigorous manner.

The cost is prohibitive still for anything other than a light hunting rifle (at least for my wallet) but I would love to have a true 7lb rifle that doesn't skimp on barrel length or contour for the sake of shaving ounces. If this can be made to reliably work and do so in a fashion that means the barrels will last then I would buy one.

 

[A10XRIFLE]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

I have used ABS and Proof in the past and the results were as others have described, excessive impact shift. Carbon separating from the steel after long periods of use.

However, I have also heard that recently they have figured out where the problems they were having came from and have been told things are different now, I just built one of My team guys a rifle on his Team Action in 6.5 Saum, He will defiantly fill me in on the performance, and will be shooting it at this years Snipers Hide cup. His barrel last year was a standard so he has a baseline to compare on. Ill post the findings here in a year or so.

 

[BlackOps Tech]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

I've received a number of emails and a few phone calls relative to the information in this thread, particularly related to a question I posed in a prior post:

<span style="font-style: italic">"The question remains, do the Carbon Wrapped barrels, regardless of when they were made, dissipate heat at a rate higher than non-wrapped barrels and do they last some period longer than non-wrapped barrels?" </span>

As a result, I'll be receiving a donation of recent technology POOF barrels, along with some "older" technology POOF barrels and I've been asked to conduct testing relative to heat dissipation, longevity and sustained accuracy (with the presence of heat), in accordance with a formal testing protocol.

I'll post details relative to the protocol and provide a full data package related to the wrapped barrels, as compared to non-wrapped barrels.

 

[mdesign]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

Looking forwards to the report George, some real life testing by a competent shooter with a solid baseline to compare from.

 

[J-Ham]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

So here's my question (and perhaps there's no on here that can or will answer), but it seems to me that at least some (not all) feel there is a severe difference in the barrels being turned out today & one from say 12 months ago... If this is the case, what is the guy supposed to do that that bought a barrel or rifle a year ago?! Is there something being done about that or is he just supposed to cross his fingers & hope for the best?! I know I'd be pissed if I had a grand wrapped up in a barrel with maybe a few hundred rounds on it & was told, 'No soup for you!'

 

[Lowlight]

Re: Carbon Wrapped Barrels, More PROOF

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: J-Ham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So here's my question (and perhaps there's no on here that can or will answer), but it seems to me that at least some (not all) feel there is a severe difference in the barrels being turned out today & one from say 12 months ago... If this is the case, what is the guy supposed to do that that bought a barrel or rifle a year ago?! Is there something being done about that or is he just supposed to cross his fingers & hope for the best?! I know I'd be pissed if I had a grand wrapped up in a barrel with maybe a few hundred rounds on it & was told, 'No soup for you!' </div></div>

That is the chance you take with any cutting edge technology, there is always a risk.

if you bought a barrel 15 months ago and find after 600 rounds it starts to unwrap, that is your bad. If a guy buys a barrel next week and it goes to 3000 rounds well, your loss was his gain.

That can happen with anything technology wise, look at your computer.