Forgot this one. At the dealership I work at, about a year ago I was talking to a Service Adviser who told me he had been in the Marines. As I am about 30 miles from Quantico and have family and friends that were/are Marines, I asked him what he was. He told me he had been a sniper about 10 years ago. Ok, I said, as my BS meter started going off for some odd reason, I asked him what his rifle was. Answer was it was a "Winchester M700". Box 1 now checked I asked him what caliber it was. "Springfield 30.06" he replied. I just walked away and luckily, he was canned about a week later saving him further embarrassment from a couple of us. You really can't make this bullshit stuff up!
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Hhahaah I come in here every so often so see all the stupid comments, makes my day after a long day.
7mm rem magnum shoots so fast that the bullets rise as range increases. And a dumb shit at cabelas telling a customer that the people At night force beat every single scope on a hard surface before boxing them up. I started to bust him, but just laughed instead.
While looking at a Tikka CTR 20" bbl at a local GS, the sales dude tells me its the perfect barrel length cuz the 6.5CM burns all its powder long before that so theres no advantage or gain in speed with more barrel length... I smiled at said, thats odd then how I get over 2950fps with a 30" barrel in my DTA 6.5CM. Speechless....
“A 6.5 Creedmoor barrel will last you 5,000 rounds easy. I should know, I’ve been building rifles for twenty years.” - local “gunsmith”
Bullets travel upward for a short time when they leave the barrel due to velocity instead of falling due to gravity......... when people pronounce MOA as (MOW-UH)...........
Last edited:
I heard a guy do that, thought it was a one time anomaly. You're telling me there's more of those people out there?
A guy i work with has a 7mag that zeroed 1" high at 100 yds, impacts dead on at 500 yds. Hell he was shooting over deer at 500 yds cause he " put it a little over the deer's back" and saw dirt fly past the deer, over his back. Its always a running joke at the matches we shoot that we need his rifle and we wouldn't have to dial!
Removing material has never made a structure strongerYes.. Keeps it from flexing when it gets hot.
What makes it stronger is that the structure has now changed. Rather than a smooth cylinder, you now have multiple reinforcing ribs or spines. Think I beam vs pipe, or flat sheet metal vs corrugated.
No. You cannot make something stronger by removing material. If you took the barrel and shaped it into a fluted shape without removing material (impossible without melting it down), then yes it is a stronger shape. In other words, 6 lbs of steel shaped in a fluted pattern is stronger than a 6 lb regular shaped barrel. But you cannot start with a 6 lb barrrel, remove 1 lb and have it be stronger.
but would a fluted MTU be stronger than a normal medium palma? assuming same weight and length however the contours work out
Understood. I have always heard and read that they were stronger, using the analogies I mentioned. Made sense to me, but I guess most people are wrong though.
If a fluted MTU is stronger than a medium palma, then a regular MTU is much stronger than a medium palma. Molding in a fluted pattern with the same amount of material as a control barrel will be a stronger structure because of the arches. But simply removing material will never make anything stronger
I'm not super familiar with how much bigger an MTU is than a Med Palma, but it depends on how the cross sectional area of the MTU with flutes compares to that of an unfluted Med Palma. If they have the same mass and cross sectional area, then yes, the MTU with flutes would be stronger.
The scope had to be perfectly level to the rifle or the bullet would essentially become a curveball.
Uhhh...actually, yes it has. Look at bridges, buildings and airplanes. If they were solid, they would break. Fluting a barrel is along the same principle. The diameter of the barrel at the bottom of the flutes is strong enough to hold all the pressure when firing. But, the outer diamter is as strong as a solid diameter...as long as the stresses run along the lines of the ridges. If there are enough ridges, they will absorb the stresses.
The two other obvious reasons to flute a barrel are heat dissipation through more surface area and lightening the barrel.
Think of the flutes working like a frame. Strong enough in the right directions, not existing where stresses aren't necessary to compensate for.
No, sir. Fake news. Not the same principle. Buildings, airplanes, and bridges do not have material removed from their structural support. Their frames consist of already-made beams that are designed for their strength. No building, airplane, or bridge is first made solid and then carved out to the desired form. They aren't made solid because they'd be useless, as well as losing the ability to flex. Stress is defined by Force divided by cross-sectional area. With a smaller cross sectional area your stress will increase.
So, you're telling me a solid beam can handle as much as an I-beam? Because the cross section is bigger? Guess we'll have to tell engineers, they don't know what they are doing.
That he didn’t need a tax stamp for a 14 inch barrel because it had a suppressor screwed on making it within the 16 inches for his ar.
Ooh! Jail time for that mistake. Unless you're a liberal running for Congress and just want to prove a point on Youtube....
I wanted to ask a week ago, how about a non drilled barrel blank compared to a drilled one? I graduated from high school lower mid pack of 55 kids, but I'd put a substantial amount of money on the drilled barrel not bending as easy.
Haha, I counter with, "you did not need that 125 dollar bra, or the 4 more in the bag". Of coarse it doesn't work but I got a word in.
This is what I am telling you and any engineer knows this as well. The only time an I-beam is stronger than a solid beam is when it has greater dimensions. However, I-beams are far more cost effective, and sufficiently strong for their purposes. I-beams are used because they make a more efficient use of the material.
This is not a same principle as fluting a barrel though, as I mentioned above. A more accurate representation would be taking an 8in by 8in solid piece of steel of whatever length, and then whittling out two sides until you have an I-beam shape. The original solid square beam would be considerably stronger.
As mijp5 said earlier, if you could take a barrel and somehow introduce the flutes into it without removing any material, it would definitely be stronger. Naturally, this would remove the weight-saving effect of flutes, which is arguably it's most desired property.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not just bashing flutes. I like them. I think they are aesthetically pleasing and most of my rifles are for hunting where any weight savings I get are much appreciated. But stronger, they are not.
To Milo, as an extreme example, take a piece of 1in pipe vs a piece of 1in round stock, and it's easier to see why one with a hole through it is easier to bend. But I agree, when just picturing it in my head, a drilled blank seems like it would be harder to bend.
^^the above post explains it nicely. An I-beam 12 inches high and 8 inches wide is no way stronger than a solid beam 12 inches high and 8 inches wide. But the solid beam would also likely weigh about 3x as much as the i-beam. However, if you liquified that same solid beam and molded or forged it into an I-beam shape of same length, then it would indeed be stronger.
This is basic stuff from shop class and some entry level physics
This is basic stuff from shop class and some entry level physics
Solid is stronger than a drilled bar with same exact diameter. However, if you reconstruct that solid bar by expanding it into a pipe and maintaining some of the radius as the wall, the pipe will be much stronger than the solid. I realize it is impossible to maintain the 1” wall of the pipe with the same material from the solid bar, but just use this as a guide
If the weight, length, and bore diameter are the same- and if the taper is the same- the barrel with the flutes will have a larger outer diameter than the nonfluted barrel. The fluted barrel will be more rigid.
All else being equal, a fluted barrel will be more rigid than a non-fluted barrel of equal weight.
All else being equal, a fluted barrel will be more rigid than a non-fluted barrel of equal weight.
Based on Bartlein's website, MTU: Diameter at Shank is 1.25, and tapers to 0.93 at muzzle. Med Palma: Starts at 1.25, tapers sharply to 0.9, and then gradually to 0.82. I could figure this on Solidworks but I don't have the software license right now. My guess is the MTU with flutes would be stronger because at any given point it is bigger around.
You’d have to add up the cross section material but I would say they would be very close, almost even. If there is a difference, I would say it’s negligible
So I did a quick calculation on excel, using only the cross-sectional area of the muzzle, which should be accurate enough for using solely as a comparison since the MTU is always bigger at any given point (after taper begins). What I found is the C-SA of the muzzle on an MTU with flutes is ~2.62sqin, and the Med Palma is ~2.11sqin, so the MTU would be stronger. This is assuming quarter inch deep flutes that are perfectly a half circle. Also assuming I typed the numbers in correctly.
I'd have to say the NFA misinformation is the worst. Hey asshole, I'm the one shooting the suppressed SBR..
Last edited:
The rule is the barrel, whether it is suppressed, braked, or flash hider must be 16" solid. Any extension making a short barrel 16+" has to be permanently affixed, i.e. welded or soldered on. And even though a suppressor is an NFA item, it is a separate item. Some dickhead is out there looking to bust you.
1. I-beams are only most effective in one directional bending stress. Any compression or tension (as you mentioned) is handled far better in a solid beam. The same is true for torsional stress, and any bending stresses in any direction other than the I-beam is oriented. I will agree that I-beams have a higher strength to weight ratio, but not stronger as a whole. Perhaps it is easier to visualize with with a wooden I-beam, versus and 8x8, or whatever similarly sized post.
2. I believe you have agreed with me here? I'm not exactly sure. To be clear, I'm saying that by being more efficient they use less material to have good strength, not more strength.
3. I somewhat agree with this. Yes you can do that and with proper patterns can retain strength, but I don't think you can retain all the strength. With the main key being "in the directions you need it."
4. I considered this as well, however, I am unaware of any cold rolling technique that could be used on a cylinder, especially one with a taper like most barrels. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I would think its very difficult.
5. Agreed on larger diameters. On the same diameter, I believe you can retain a great deal of strength, but not equal to the orginal.
6. This was in response to Milo 2.5 asking about the difference in bending a non-drilled barrel blank, vs a drilled one.
http://www.fulton-armory.com/\faqs\AR-FAQs\fluting.htm
This is an analysis somebody did that maybe conveys the information better than myself. I had another link too but I lost it. They did an actual deflection test with a barrel and then cut flutes into it and tried it again, with I believe it was 25% more deflection (deflection was very small regardless).
I hope I'm not coming across as combative, just trying to have a debate. I apologize if I sounded like a dick in my first reply to you with the fake news remark.
2. I believe you have agreed with me here? I'm not exactly sure. To be clear, I'm saying that by being more efficient they use less material to have good strength, not more strength.
3. I somewhat agree with this. Yes you can do that and with proper patterns can retain strength, but I don't think you can retain all the strength. With the main key being "in the directions you need it."
4. I considered this as well, however, I am unaware of any cold rolling technique that could be used on a cylinder, especially one with a taper like most barrels. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I would think its very difficult.
5. Agreed on larger diameters. On the same diameter, I believe you can retain a great deal of strength, but not equal to the orginal.
6. This was in response to Milo 2.5 asking about the difference in bending a non-drilled barrel blank, vs a drilled one.
http://www.fulton-armory.com/\faqs\AR-FAQs\fluting.htm
This is an analysis somebody did that maybe conveys the information better than myself. I had another link too but I lost it. They did an actual deflection test with a barrel and then cut flutes into it and tried it again, with I believe it was 25% more deflection (deflection was very small regardless).
I hope I'm not coming across as combative, just trying to have a debate. I apologize if I sounded like a dick in my first reply to you with the fake news remark.
Last edited:
That is what I understood it as. It’s ok to have a shorter barrel as long as the suppressor, brake, etc is permanently attached to the barrel making the overall length 16 inches or more. The individual I was referring to had a suppressor threaded on to a 14 inch barrel
Similar threads
