He can’t sell it to them because it’s snake oil. The wild claims + zero proof confirm that.
That leaves him making up call of duty like scenarios to justify something that makes no sense.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
tacom structured barrel
- Thread starter Guan999
- Start date
He can’t sell it to them because it’s snake oil. The wild claims + zero proof confirm that.
That leaves him making up call of duty like scenarios to justify something that makes no sense.
As a note I did not say nor think by any means that someone was "too engrained in a strict regiment" as a sport. Individuals yes- sports overall no.
However- I can say those things a zillion times, a zillion ways, show groups, data and will not make headway. I am arguing a "no win scenario".
MauryGold-- I guess the images of the 1000yd target are BS too.
I have offered to show up Maury- what's the problem?
You can come shoot with me anytime I shoot in Holt, FL. It won’t change the complete lack of testing before making wild claims about revolutionizing barrel making.
John, the problem is that There are dozens of shooters on this forum that can post targets shot with conventional barrels that are at least as good. You have theoretical benefits that add up to good stuff that you cannot prove. Posting a couple of good targets doesn't turn a Faxon barrel into a Bartlein. It takes dedicated testing plans and documented processes and results to prove things, your Engineering friends should have told you that. You not accepting that makes you an evangelist not a scientist. I have tried to engage on the science but you have not done the practical detailed experiments to prove the worth of the science. I would encourage you to continue your work with a goal of creating a comprehensive way to prove the hypothesis. Showing up in Florida while a great vacation will not solve anything as there is no control variable.
I am just a normal shooter
Sometimes instructing sometimes working with and shooting with Army folks (B4)
I love the structured barrel
So win for me
Excellent, I am very happy that there are active customers out there who will speak up. I would love to see some of the successes ( that I have heard are out there, thanks John).
I have been very slow to reply to this:
Do you know the history of the two barrels you have?
Under what circumstances they were started?
As I recall they are $150 blanks. Starting out smaller in diameter than we would normally produce. So... would you say that the "cheaper blank" shot equal to the higher end blanks? If these are the two barrels I think they are (which we never got paid for or data that was to be exchanged in lieu of) they were a test of a "high production AR barrel". Not saying "low cost high production barrels" are questionable, but this certainly adds more "color" to the picture.
If these barrels are not the barrels I think they are... send me the serial numbers.
Oh I forgot. I need to spend $1500 on a vundabarrel to understand how amazing it is. Never seen that type of marketing before......
But you don’t have to buy $1500
That’s just if you add all options
You don’t have too
I’m not sure why there is such hate for something you don’t own and or have tried
Last edited:
We just ran two surveys:
1) Does barrel stiffness matter? Over 600 replies. 96% YES 4% NO.
2) Does barrel heat matter? Over 700 replies. 98% YES 2% NO.
I am sure you you are in the NO votes for both surveys.
I am sure you know what the Second Moment of Area is: Definition. The second moment of area is also known as the moment of inertia of a shape. The second moment of area is a measure of the 'efficiency' of a cross-sectional shape to resist bending caused by loading. Both beams have the same area and even the same shape.
Concerning Heat Transfer:
The rate of heat transfer is directly proportional to an object's surface area. This means that a larger surface area will result in faster heat transfer. For example, a larger metal plate will transfer heat faster than a smaller metal plate. This is because a larger area has more surface particles that can conduct heat.
Please provide your counter math to explain why our barrel falls outside of this basic principle. We have had multiple engineers and computer simulations that note our design is superior to a standard tube.
Please provide your premises on why our increased surface area does NOT effect long shot strings.
You posted your 6mm group. To note our group shots 45-50 were superior to your posted group. Minor fact. However, it was an opening for you to show your 50rd group- please provide it. Take NOTE: if you even come close to our group I will jump to 75rds, then 100rds... get the picture. Your barrel will get hot, it will shift POI and the groups will open up... Are you really going to deny that? I will say "YES" as I am sure you voted NO on both surveys.
I understand that this performance has no bearing on F1, Bench or PRS. It is a technology THAT WAS NEVER meant to compete in those venues. Throw away barrels that never go past 20shot strings is not our cup of tea. It is a technology to reach higher velocities with longer lives and reduced extended group size.
But we also posted extended groups for 300Norma and .416Barretts....And you will instantly say that nobody does that. We have a MRAD300Norma on a base. It has nearly 2krds through it. "I dumped 3mags as fast as we could- we had to put our notebooks over the barrel it was so hot- swung to a 100yd target and shot a sub MOA group on target/aim point". Now who would possibly care about that performance?
We have a .308 in mil comps: one of the stations recently shot was an unlimited round count for hits in a given time. One of the competitors barrels was "dripping" when the station ended. Dripping barrel= bad "fire fight" in my opinion. The dripping barrel would not hold a group after that station. Why- it did essentially become a very light weight tube?
Round count- AR platforms... are they all limited to 20rds before they are to hot to hold a tight group?
Don't worry you will have your continued chance to call us 'liars and snake oil salesman".
We will be running a test on three barrels. With each rifle (identical as possible) weighted to the same value (at center of mass) regardless of barrel weight. One will be an ultra- light barrel. By many premises here (yours included) that light weight barrel should match ours round for round- harmonics, stiffness and heat does not matter. The test will be daily 5rd groups with a weekly 30rd group cool down for 5min and a second extended group.
You are welcome to bring your 6mm or 6,5 or whatever and put your groups into this sequence- let alone a gas gun platform. I will be happy to pay for your hotel and food costs.
I know what you will say... it is easier to attack, on a key board, something you know absolutely nothing about. NOTHING: back to the Second Area of Inertia and Heat Transfer. Though I forgot- you believe the light weight pencil barrel will hold with a standard bull barrel and our barrel.
I am sad that there needs to be so much defending here
Funny how B4 1,2,3/75 th all know exactly what a structured barrel is and does
And in fact is coveted
I’ll just be grateful I took the mental time and physical effort to work for and have my structured barrel
I enjoy shooting it
And oddly ( not so oddly ) so does everyone who shoots it
They like the “ dampened “ feel of the recoil impulse and more over
Enjoy hitting targets at distance repeatedly
Allllll day
HAHAHA this is so fucking dumb. What are you talking about????
Heat transfer doesn’t mean a damn thing when you’ve potentially created unequal structural changes. (You have to prove the accuracy is just as good - it’s not)
Also. No one cares about hot barrels on bolt guns. The fuck are you talking about?
Please don’t make up more bullshit call of duty scenarios to justify something no one needs.
How many times are you going to go dormant for months and come back with ZERO proof and more wild claims.
Last edited:
I remember you telling me that some units are running these on AR/ like platforms. Is there anyway you would be allowed to post a couple of pictures? I would love to see the gas block mount and clearance in a mil type hand guard.
And thank you!
And thank you!
The Tacom HQ barrels along side the Charlie tarac are very much used and liked by many in sof
I am not able to send you photos if that’s what you want
But I work with and have good close friends that are out of ranger bat
And yeah they had THQ barrels
And yeah they use mostly stock came with rifle ( mrad) barrels
But there are specialty barrels and etc
So are they contracted? With nsn ? Who knows
There are so many tiers and groups with so much freedom and access
After doing some live fire stalking lanes
All dudes saw my TacomHQ barrel
Knew what it was had shot one and seen what it can do at Bragg/ Moore wherever
And funny
Here everyone gives THQ shit
??
I don’t getnit
If you don’t have one!? If you haven’t shot one ?
Politely
Shut the fuck up! You’re just making yourself look like a Luddite/ idiot
Come up and shoot mine
Anytime
NH based at the moment
But will be overseas the next 2 months
Last edited:
You all do understand
That kreiger, bartlein, shilen ,and any barrel maker you know …..can send a blank rifled out to your caliber and twist rate…..it then goes to tacom HQ
Sooooo you have a kick ass barrel
And THQ treatment and your telling me
It is a waste… doesn’t work….. and whatever else
Sorry not sorry
I have a bunch of .30 cal rifles. The kreiger 1:8 .308 structured barrel I have
Is the most effective rifle I have
So you all do you
I’ll do me and stick with my micro group
Doing work
That kreiger, bartlein, shilen ,and any barrel maker you know …..can send a blank rifled out to your caliber and twist rate…..it then goes to tacom HQ
Sooooo you have a kick ass barrel
And THQ treatment and your telling me
It is a waste… doesn’t work….. and whatever else
Sorry not sorry
I have a bunch of .30 cal rifles. The kreiger 1:8 .308 structured barrel I have
Is the most effective rifle I have
So you all do you
I’ll do me and stick with my micro group
Doing work
Your claim that your bros were involved in acquiring them and that they were widely used in the 75th, without any evidence, is just as unsubstantiated as the proof of these barrels.
Not widely used
Def known about
Wanted and used when available if available
You are def scraping crumbs bro
Please explain "unequal structural changes"- what are those?
Please explain why the following is wrong:
Heat Conduction in Cylinders and Spheres Steady state heat transfer: How does our system fail under the basics of this engineering
Please provide the math that shows error in our 2nd Area of Inertia calcs.
Your computer simulations that show ours are wrong.
Please explain why higher measured forces are required to distort our barrel- bending and torsional- than a standard barrel of the same weight. If the math is wrong it should fail in real world forces.
If you don't believe harmonics, vibration, heat, materials, processing ... all have nothing to do with accuracy. Then I can never win this argument.
Our accuracy does not match a standard barrel? You have never seen one, shot one, ran one thru its paces. What is your premises for such a statement? By your statement our barrel will not equal a "pencil" barrel or a standard "bull barrel". For the record. For the record you are stating that the pencil barrel will match the bull barrel.
A hot barrel does not effect accuracy: you are part of the 2%. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps.
So... you have never let your barrel cool down?? I call BS on that one.
You are now stating active service people who have shot our barrels, and shoot them in comps, are full of BS.
You are now stating that people who have been in the absolute worse case scenarios and note "they would want our barrel on their gun" are full of BS.
Do you not have any boundaries?
How do you know I never tried? Ive put a bunch of rounds through a buddies 300PRC with a structured barrel. He drank the coolaid. It shot no better, the barrel lasted no longer than a regular contoured barrel. So he decide to buy a second one.........and guess what? Same deal. So $3K on two barrels which was about $1500 more than he should have spent.
If there was some amazing verifiable benefit here, these would be taking over the shooting sports. Its been years we have heard this shit.
And to the fool saying that 75th was using these, or buying them; ROFL. Would not be surprised to the Charlie Taraq and similar devices, but structured barrels..............no. Show me the contract ID so I can look it up. They would not be wasting unit fund on such dumb shit when they can have Big Army and SOCOM pay for their small arms including barrel replacements in the system. The Micropurchase limit is $10,000 and class IX items are prohibited.
14-4. Restricted Transactions | Acquisition.GOV
www.acquisition.gov
p. Weapons, Ammunition, and Explosives. Use of the GPC for purchases of these items is generally prohibited. As controlled DoD commodities, weapons, ammunition, and explosives are assigned to the Army (see DFARS 208.70), which has contracting responsibility to supply all DoD Components with weapons, ammunition, explosives, and other commodities listed in DFARS PGI 208.7006. DoD Components are to submit their commodity requirements via MIPR to the assigned Component in accordance with DFARS 208.7002 and DFARS PGI 208.7002-1. See Chapter 16 for exceptions to policy.
Now if you said JSOC who has their own special procurement authorities and work arounds was testing these, then atleast you would have some plausible possibility.
So whats the next claim so we can call bullshit on it.
I have as many boundaries as you have proof of your barrels superiority - ZERO.
you’re selling bullshit and you’re not even good at it.
Where are the tests of these barrels shot side by side with standard barrels. Just the results. I would assume Tacom would have that handy to answer many of the questions posted here. Seems like that would be super simple to have to show folks with questions.
To me it’s a red flag when every response from the representatives here are giant walls of text. If things work, show us the studies proving so in a simple format.
To me it’s a red flag when every response from the representatives here are giant walls of text. If things work, show us the studies proving so in a simple format.
Last edited:
As stated in a previous response, so keeping this short, we plan to. For years, we sought for such data to come from third-party, knowing people would be rightfully skeptical of any internal test. We have welcomed AB, Reloading All Day, and others to test it, but either there is no response or disinterest. Unfortunately, this endeavor has been construed as if we have something to hide (lol). This will change soon though. We did not expect for the results, some significant, from others to be dismissed so easily.
Please detail either the customer's first or last name. 1) We have right to face our accuser based on this format. 2) We checked our entire SB order history, and we cannot identify anyone that matches the criteria. Other than your word no proof exists of those barrels performance. Please provide some kind of information, so that we may contact said individual. Compared to the 300 Norma at a mil base with well over 2k rounds on it, this is a stark contrast. If there is a customer dissatisfied (typically, we here, "It is the best barrel they have ever shot"), we would like to know whether we can work toward a solution.How do you know I never tried? Ive put a bunch of rounds through a buddies 300PRC with a structured barrel. He drank the coolaid. It shot no better, the barrel lasted no longer than a regular contoured barrel. So he decide to buy a second one.........and guess what? Same deal. So $3K on two barrels which was about $1500 more than he should have spent.
If there was some amazing verifiable benefit here, these would be taking over the shooting sports. Its been years we have heard this shit.
And to the fool saying that 75th was using these, or buying them; ROFL. Would not be surprised to the Charlie Taraq and similar devices, but structured barrels..............no. Show me the contract ID so I can look it up. They would not be wasting unit fund on such dumb shit when they can have Big Army and SOCOM pay for their small arms including barrel replacements in the system. The Micropurchase limit is $10,000 and class IX items are prohibited.
14-4. Restricted Transactions | Acquisition.GOV
p. Weapons, Ammunition, and Explosives. Use of the GPC for purchases of these items is generally prohibited. As controlled DoD commodities, weapons, ammunition, and explosives are assigned to the Army (see DFARS 208.70), which has contracting responsibility to supply all DoD Components with weapons, ammunition, explosives, and other commodities listed in DFARS PGI 208.7006. DoD Components are to submit their commodity requirements via MIPR to the assigned Component in accordance with DFARS 208.7002 and DFARS PGI 208.7002-1. See Chapter 16 for exceptions to policy.
Now if you said JSOC who has their own special procurement authorities and work arounds was testing these, then atleast you would have some plausible possibility.
So whats the next claim so we can call bullshit on it.
You clearly have made your position clear. We are putting our name out there (mine is clearly visible). If you are absolute this is "snake oil", will you and others put your name out there as well? Keyboard warriors are a dime a dozen on the internet and forums.
Never in our right mind would we have believed the subject of barrel stiffness and heat affecting precision would be so vehemently disagreed with. In earlier mention of the poll, you are a small small percentage though. I find it interesting we are held to a statistical standard, which we will show soon enough, but will you be able to match our mathematical and physical standard? We already know likely not. Statistics are great to observe a result, but the 'why' may not be so obvious. The fact barrel flexion has zero consideration during or following the shot is all we need to know to realize the limitations of the conversation.
Your and others disdain is obvious, and we no longer need to exhaust our time. We look forward to you watching on the side lines.
This is how I know you are full of shit, because I have shot the barrel and he 1000% exists. A. He is on the Hide and I'm not going to doxx him or give you his info if you cant figure it out of the dozens of barrels you sell a year. B. If he wants to engage with you he can.
Its been years with the same bullshit. I have not seen one head to head test with a control the verify any of your claims. Every single skeptical person has asked for this, and you just throw out a bunch of world salad shit instead of doing the ONE thing, that could prove your claims.
Let me ask you a serious question. If your barrel has all these amazing qualities, why aren't every ELR, KO1M, KO2M,ect competitor running them? You could save them thousands of a dollars a year in barrel and chambering costs not to mention they would be winning every match with your unicorn fart fairy dust magic.
People who put their reputation and money on the line competing, don't seem to buy it. Guys who would spend astronomical sums of money for any edge or competitive advantage.
And here we are. Waiting for another wall of nonsensical text and avoiding the same basic questions and requests people have made for YEARS.
You said TWO 300PRC's- we cannot match that input.
We will have three rifles here: Structured, "bull', pencil.
I am inviting you to come out and shoot them side by side.
By your words - both of the other barrels should be superior.
I am inviting you to be part of the statistics.
Come on in and shoot on my dime.
I can drop a .416 or .460 in place if you would like.
This is why people think you are full of shit/dishonest.
Nowhere did I say those other barrels will shoot better and its laughable that you have some random "bull" and "pencil" barrel for comparison.
Thats not how tests work and there is no control. For example. How about you take 2 blanks from the same manufacture. I know you need like a 1.3 or 1.4 or whatever. So order 2 of them. Do your fairy dust to one and leave the other as a strait blank. Have a 3rd party do the chamber jobs using the same reamer. Now set up 2 rifles identical to each other. Same everything. Then test them side by side. Test them over the length of the barrel life. Record groups and velocity all along the way.
And thats just a sample size on 1 with 1 control, Which is not really even significant. It would take a decent N size to even be able to make an educated assessment and come to some sort of conclusion.
And thats what people want. I have a sneaking suspicion you A. Can't afford or wont pay for this test that will cost in excess of $10-20K with 2 rifle setups, ammo, test equipment, cameras,ect. B. You aren't 100% positive your pixie dust barrel will come out on top, so you won't take the financial or reputational risk.
Run a legit test that people can have confidence in, and I would be happy to take you up on your offer.
The three barrels are sequential from the manufacturer. I never said random barrels.
Dan Warner will chamber them (interestingly he does NOT think our barrels are "snake oil").
Same stocks, scopes, same weight.
The pencil barrel is thrown in (on an equal weight chassis to the other barrels) to speak to the effect that overall rifle weight has as compared to the barrel, recently heat (bolt guns and heat), then once data is pulled - start cutting the barrel down for length only (testing barrel stiffness vs "harmonics"). We will happily test variance of bullet weight, bullet type and manufacturer and powder charges. Open to input.
We will have a scope recording, target recording, room recording - to eliminate "we cheated".
N size. We are collecting a fairly large group of third party shooters. Some with significant target data and comments. Even a stat guy will note general observations have to be taken into account at some point (A stat guy is following this thread and has offered to help with the test). We have always known N is a hard variable to lock down. The metallurgy barrel to barrel is not exactly the same (let alone barrel mfg to another) and the gunsmith has a huge impact on results. Bad chamber= bad results.
I am not running.
Dan Warner will chamber them (interestingly he does NOT think our barrels are "snake oil").
Same stocks, scopes, same weight.
The pencil barrel is thrown in (on an equal weight chassis to the other barrels) to speak to the effect that overall rifle weight has as compared to the barrel, recently heat (bolt guns and heat), then once data is pulled - start cutting the barrel down for length only (testing barrel stiffness vs "harmonics"). We will happily test variance of bullet weight, bullet type and manufacturer and powder charges. Open to input.
We will have a scope recording, target recording, room recording - to eliminate "we cheated".
N size. We are collecting a fairly large group of third party shooters. Some with significant target data and comments. Even a stat guy will note general observations have to be taken into account at some point (A stat guy is following this thread and has offered to help with the test). We have always known N is a hard variable to lock down. The metallurgy barrel to barrel is not exactly the same (let alone barrel mfg to another) and the gunsmith has a huge impact on results. Bad chamber= bad results.
I am not running.
But why not do it yourself? Sure people can question things regarding the data, but at least there would be data to question. Currently things are so vague that people are simply questioning the idea as a whole.
As an engineer I look for the equations to match the real world. 2nd Moments of Inertia, Convection, heat dissipation, full system analysis (Computer program capable of calculating deformation of a bird strike on a aircraft wing) etc... Little did we expect that such analysis would be totally discarded as "mumbo jumbo". Of course 737Max's do have problems staying in the air. However, the equations used here are straight forward, well understood, long standing equations.
Example: little would I believe that heat is not considered an element for accuracy in the real world. Expansion coefficients on a bore.. somehow don't occur... effecting dispersion... groups location.... The formula is so straight forward and conclusive for me, even applying large margins of error the results of comparing a standard barrel configuration to ours is night and day. Real world- our guns hands down out shoot my TRG as the round count rises. I have watched trueing sessions (SF groups) stop at 8-10 rounds due to dispersion where we easily go 2x on the exact same target course. Observed data vs measured- agreed.
All of the third party shooters were meant to add credibility. I had not anticipated how it would be frowned on. My mistake.
I had really thought the 22cal data was pretty impressive... not so much.
I posted extended round groups 30-50rds... I don't have a standard barrel to compare at 30-50rds... the goal was to see comparative 3rd party groups. OK my mistake. I was also called out for posting my groups. A bit of a "no win scenario".
To everybody's point- maybe our extended group performance does not matter in todays firearm world. A goose.
For me an extended group is a stronger indicator of performance than a small group.
More of a story than an argument.
With that: what will be looked at as accepted data?
3 guns as identical as possible except for barrels.
All the same exact bar stock sequentially cut.
5 rounds per day each gun for four days. One round on a point- 4 rounds on the second point to isolate cold bore.
5th day a 30-40rd group. The size of that group could be less or more based on the performance of the barrels- I do not want to torch a barrel (the stock barrel). This is not an abuse life test at this point.
4 weeks.
Repeat similar rounds on different loads/factory rounds. No need for extended groups. Test to extreme weight spreads.
Intermix other shooters after the first main base test.
Measure Mirage, external barrel temps, velocity, chamber temps at the end of the string.
Other criteria open for discussion: swap scopes, rest systems...etc.. Back to back extended ... for the AR guys.
As was pointed out- this is an expensive test. What else should be looked at and controlled?
Wow that was a wall of text.
Surely you own an action. Take one of your barrels, and take another barrel of the same quality that we would buy, say a bartlein prefit. Shoot ammo through them, and show the results. This test doesn't have to be that expensive.
It's odd that as an engineer you can't figure out how to test in a way that would show any results.
All I'm saying is do something, anything, at least try. You keep inviting people out to shoot people invite you to shoot. None of that is necessary, just shoot two barrels side by side with different ammo and show any type of results.
Surely you own an action. Take one of your barrels, and take another barrel of the same quality that we would buy, say a bartlein prefit. Shoot ammo through them, and show the results. This test doesn't have to be that expensive.
It's odd that as an engineer you can't figure out how to test in a way that would show any results.
All I'm saying is do something, anything, at least try. You keep inviting people out to shoot people invite you to shoot. None of that is necessary, just shoot two barrels side by side with different ammo and show any type of results.
This group will not allow such a simple test- it was already called out a few points earlier.
Simple question- statistically complex.
Engineer- projects that were so new that names had to be invented to describe failures and there was no way to make measurements. Problems that could run at a 90% failure rate masking a 86% failure rate masking a 84% failure rate...
Isolating these barrels or any barrel falls in that category.
Shooter to start. Someone will counter with a "sled" - sleds currently do not duplicate the movement of the rifle. Therefore the data is potentially flawed. Onto itself perhaps/yes- compared to a shoulder not so much. The sled will always reduce the movement of the barrel as compared to the shooter. A bound system.
Chassis vs laminate vs carbon fiber vs glass vs....
By setting the barrels into real world and getting 20k rounds with 'opinions" of the shooters does become a statistical point. Different stocks, actions, calibers, lengths, weights, bullets, powders.... the complexity starts to wash to a result.
If we have an ELR shooter take 1st place and hold a Cold Bore record- it is only a point. A top shooter for Vudoo dominates his league and says its the best barrel he has ever shot- its only a point. A light barrel is only one of 15 ever to meet a target requirement at 1000yds - only a point in a system.
We did post 3rd party testing of a 6mm barrel to barrel (the tester tried to talk the client out of buying our barrel) noted his results. One year later to repeat the test against a top tier standard barrel. The results were ignored. Ely testing was ignored. All of the posted results faulted in some way. Posted results for .22 to .460's and 50's. For me watching a "system", knowing the math and simulations predicted the result, knowing some very very high end SF shooters want to continue their testing in high end facilities- just points on the graph. We do have clients that have bought several barrels, some of wide range of calibers, sell them to their clients. One of those clients has easily shot 5k rounds thru our barrels on all types of platforms- a point on the chart. In his case some tests were one barrel out and ours in- no other change. Drastically different results (.338 Enabelr)
Now knowing that all of the random data is to be ignored: If I use two different actions I will be called out. Two different chassis, triggers, scopes any identifiable variable will result in saying the test is invalid. Therefore we will reproduce the guns as exact as possible and rotate limited components to reduce those identified variables.
If a variable can be found we will be called out.
Yes we own several actions- new in the box of all grades.
The barrels are completing at K.S. Arms in Canada. We will start the work on them once paper work allows them to enter the US.
We actually own 3 MRADS. Two new. One on a mil base with 2000+rds on it. I think I will bring it back to run it against a stock one that has been just broken in. They are 300Norma's. I can run a three way test- The new MRAD vs a used MRAD with a SB and our 6yr old 300Norma. Yes - the mil guys have very strong "opinions" on the mil based MRAD. They are to be "ignored"- sounds like a cheesy sci-fi movie.
Bringing in a 6.5mm pre-fit from another mfg is a good thought to run against the other 4.
A limited variable $25k test.
Christ you make things complicated. When something needs a wall of text for a simple question, it make you look like you don't know what you're talking about.
Eliminate the damn variables by running two barrels on one action. Then you have no variables outside of the barrel.
Here's another genius idea, you point out about 4 different tests that were done, how about sharing those? Are potential customers supposed to scour the internet for them? Finally, just share the data, I don't need to read another wall of text about how a Boeing airplane flies or dumb shit about a 90% failure rate masking an 86% failure rate masking an 84% failure rate.
Eliminate the damn variables by running two barrels on one action. Then you have no variables outside of the barrel.
Here's another genius idea, you point out about 4 different tests that were done, how about sharing those? Are potential customers supposed to scour the internet for them? Finally, just share the data, I don't need to read another wall of text about how a Boeing airplane flies or dumb shit about a 90% failure rate masking an 86% failure rate masking an 84% failure rate.
From what can tell, the major claim of Structured Barrels (SB) is that a SB is stronger and stiffer than a conventionally profiled barrel of equivalent weight. This is, essentially, the same claim made by fluted barrel proponents. I’m not convinced that a straight blank is a good control, as it would have significantly more mass. But, a fluted barrel and a conventional barrel (both weighing the same as a SB) would be good candidates for controls. Throw in any other barrels/profiles that you like. But, maintaining the barrel weight and length across some subset of controls would seem to eliminate some variables.
I think a .22lr could be a neat application for this barrel. Especially when you consider the cost for the structured barrel and the barrel life a .22lr has.
Any benefits would have to be VERY tangible in order for it to make sense on something like a .300NM, when you have only ~1,000 rounds of barrel life.
I'm not saying these do or don't "work", that I don't know. But if I was a prospective buyer, the benefits would have to be readily apparent in order for it to make economic sense in most applications.
Any benefits would have to be VERY tangible in order for it to make sense on something like a .300NM, when you have only ~1,000 rounds of barrel life.
I'm not saying these do or don't "work", that I don't know. But if I was a prospective buyer, the benefits would have to be readily apparent in order for it to make economic sense in most applications.
