Does anyone have any experience with Proof Research barrels? They are expensive, but may be a good way to get a light barrel with a heavy profile. Best of both worlds and all that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Some research suggests otherwise, that CF in fact has good heat conductivity.
That, plus one shooter's observation that mirage over the CF wrapped barrel is worse than a similar steel barrel, suggests that the CF conducts and sheds heat very well.
It's not ceramic or fiberglass, it's carbon.
Joe
I did a little additional sleuthing on this myself.
While I did in fact read about some budding new special technology that is able to achieve very high thermal conductivity from CFRP, standard structural CFRP is about 10 watts/meter per degree Kelvin. Compare that to ~43 W/m-K for chro-moly steel and ~25 W/m-K for 416 stainless.
Trouble with this figure, is it relies heavily on what type of epoxy resin was tested, what ratio was used, how well it was laminated, how and how well it was cured.
Nonetheless, standard common sense applies. I've been around CFRP quite a lot, and have a feel for it:
If you hold a piece of aluminum up against a grinder wheel, it only takes a second before it's too hot to hold.
Steel? You can grind it a good bit before it's too hot.
Titanium? You can grind on it a good long while before it burns your fingers.
Carbon? Takes a real long time.
Great post.
Trouble is the low thermal conductivity doesn't allow for the heat to wick away from the core very quickly.
ETA:
Well, hell... might have to ponder this more. We can all agree a water cooled bore would be great...and water has low thermal conductivity too.
Old post. This topic has been beaten to death.Does anyone have any experience with Proof Research barrels? They are expensive, but may be a good way to get a light barrel with a heavy profile. Best of both worlds and all that.
It doesn't seem that these barrels are worth the price for a "barrel burner" but for in order to conserve weight in a large weapon like the CheyTac, so far they seem great. The idea of shaving ten pounds is worth the price to me.
Santee, did you have any trouble in load development? Were the nodes spaced similar to your previous barrel (assuming the previous barrel was SS)?
Load development was a breeze. I found it hard to find any combination it didn't like. I attribute that to the high quality Rock Creek barrel liner as well as Dan Mullers gunsmithing skills. As I said, I got a great deal on the barreled action, so the "high cost" of the barrel didn't factor in for me.
This has been my only barrel chambered for 6.5-284, so I can't compare it to any previous experience. But the weight savings on this hunting rifle have been appreciated.
Once the barrel it toast, I am leaning toward re-barreling it with a regular SS #5 fluted in .280 AI. Should be comparable in weight, at a lower cost.
Curious to know what load you're using. I have 2 6.5-284's, one with a 28" Benchmark/Proof Barrel and one with a 28" Hart barrel. I have a load at 2950fps with the Hart barrel - hammers but with some ejector marks/primer flattening.
Been using H1000 in the Proof barrel with no pressure signs and getting just over 3000fps. Barrel is noticeably cooler with strings of fire.
Shoot the H4831SC load and the barrel gets hot quick/brass comes out hot, etc.
I think the Rock Creek barrels were one of the first ones to be used when Proof technology was ABS. I think they have refined the process since.
Thank you for this extremely useful analysis. I've been searching all over the internet looking for the exact information you presented. Looks like I'll be buying two (16" AR-15 and 22" DPMS 308). Thanks again!There are many experts on public forums who speak opinions based on whim and emotion and are quick to dismiss, and even insult, others. I am neither of these. I am not an expert in marksmanship, rifles, ammo, or reloading but the Ph.D. on my wall labels me somewhat of an expert on chemical physics...