Throat erosion - a word of warning

NigelM

Well-Known Member
I have always considered myself pretty careful when it comes to reloading and pressure. My reloading process involves lots of reading online of other manufacturers load data, advice from other people and sites like 6br, and pushing up to the pressure signs in my own rifle, backing off half a grain and working down to an accuracy node. It has always worked very well and the rifles are all very accurate.

My 6.5x47 Lapua is no exception. PacNor super match grade barrel in a blue printed Rem 700 action. I use RL15 as many say it's the go to powder along with N550. It has always preferred RL15 so I have stuck with it.

The rifle has shot a few hundred deer has been through the test process on 4 different bullets and enjoyed a few of days on the range. I estimate it has fired 700-800 rounds. It has always been loaded fairly hot, a 129 ABLR at 2910 fps and a 123 Scenar at 2980 fps are two of the loads. No pressure signs, no sticky bolts, no flat primers. Shoots in the 0.4's if I do my bit.

All good, right? As long as you stay under pressure all should be fine.

I have always measured everything, including OAL to ogive when engaging the lands. I only ever do it when I'm loading a new bullet as an initial measurement. I got a bit suspicious at the weekend that the measurement was growing so I went back to the records and checked. The data said the rifle has enjoyed 151 thou of throat erosion.

To check it I went back to the first bullet I ever loaded it with and found the lands again. Sure enough it loaded 150 thou longer than it did when the rifle was new. Looking at the interim measurements and rounds fired it's a steady, gradual increase, so not an imperfection in the original chambering that shot out very quickly.

RL15 is a double based powder. I know the spec on the website says single base, but it's not, it's a combination of Nitrocellulose and Nitroglycerine. Pressures were up over 60k psi but below the max. 63k psi, so up there but under pressure.

My cleaning regime is fairly robust. Bore Tech cleaners and nylon brushes, pushed through after every outing. On a busy day I will clean after every 30 rounds or so or the rifle goes off. I don't think it's over cleaned or cleaned too abrasively in any way. Bore guide always used.

I never fire a shot string of more that 5 and am very aware of overheating. I even give it a minute between shots on the 5 shot strings so that's really not a cause.

So...

1. Are PacNor barrels especially soft?
2. Are double based powders really that evil?
3. Should I be well below max pressures if I want to maintain a reasonable barrel life even when they advertise high max pressures?
4. Is Bore Tech particularly abrasive or corrosive?
5. Is cleaning bad?

The rifle is still shooting 1/2 minute groups, but I suspect a re barrel is close. Just trying to work out what I have done wrong so I can correct for the next one.

Thanks for the help.
 
Double-base powders are indeed a factor as they burn hotter than single-base ones.

Pressure however is not a factor in errosion.

Your cleaning regime seems reasonable; I‘m even missing a bronze brush in it.

Errosion is mostly a function of the volume of powder that is has seen. 800 rounds does seem to be a rather early stage for this state of errosion with your caliber. I have seen similar with a .300 WM Blaser barrel.
 
So 150 thou of wear / erosion .


That’s the throat..... so what’s the “figure” or limit in thou?

What’s rest of barrel like all gots length?

If that’s ok and the accuracy is there ... what dictates new re- barrel?

Paul
 
Double-base powders are indeed a factor as they burn hotter than single-base ones.

Pressure however is not a factor in errosion.

Your cleaning regime seems reasonable; I‘m even missing a bronze brush in it.

Errosion is mostly a function of the volume of powder that is has seen. 800 rounds does seem to be a rather early stage for this state of errosion with your caliber. I have seen similar with a .300 WM Blaser barrel.

That's why I'm confused. I was expecting to get 2000 rounds out of it.

Interesting to hear that pressure is not a factor. Hadn't realised that.

I just follow Bore Tech instructions on the cleaning and they recommend a nylon brush as their copper solvent will dissolve bronze.

Looks like it's down to either the quality of steel used on the barrel or the double base powder.
 
So 150 thou of wear / erosion .


That’s the throat..... so what’s the “figure” or limit in thou?

What’s rest of barrel like all gots length?

If that’s ok and the accuracy is there ... what dictates new re- barrel?

Paul

Gunsmiths tend to quote that a barrel will start to go off after about 120 thou of wear. At 150 thou it shouldn't really be shooting any more.

I didn't say a new barrel was dictated, I said I suspect it's coming soon. Until it's no longer accurate it will stay where it is.

Not got a bore scope thankfully so haven't looked inside.
 
Well, pressure as such is not a factor. But along with pressure goes heat. So I need to correct myself on this.
 
So how "eroded" is the last 1" of bore at the crown end? That bullet has plenty of time to re-stabalise after it 'negotiates' a less than perfect release from the trap.

See it as a manufacturer FOC freebore that will allow you to squeeze a further few FPS from your pet smoke pole!

K
 
Spoke to both Russel Gall & Callum Fergasun about barrels and accuracy

Both said same .... both seen rifles with bores that immediately say is basically wrecked and shouldn’t shoot but the rifles in questions maybe went from shooting 1/2” groups but opened to 1” !

Yet looking through a borescope you’d think it wouldn’t hit a barn door !

I know of a .22-250 in that situation at moment but still doing the job before it’s sent for another barrel ... 3rd I believe

Thanks for info on throat wear ..... had no idea of “ figures “

Paul
 
Pressure IS a factor, and significant one! There is no doubt whatsoever about that. That’s why you see the majority of erosion at the throat where the peak pressures occur. A reduction in flame temperature from a cooler burning propellant would help but pressure, temperature and performance generally come hand in hand I’m afraid.

Your loads at running at an estimated 4136 bar, from my experience testing military weapons with hard chromed barrels you see a significant increase in throat erosion at >4000 bar compared to say 3600 bar which 5.56mm & 7.62mm generally run at. While your within the pressure limits of the cartridge your pressures are still high and that’s why your barrel has suffered.
 
I bought a Sako M591 in 6.5x47 with a Pac-Nor barrel that had supposedly only seen 450 rounds through it. The erosion in the throat made me think it was many more than that, but the bore was otherwise fine and I bought it anyway. It shoots a shade less than MoA but will do that with virtually any load I try. Perhaps it would shoot 0.5 MoA when new, but I'll never know.

A Sako L461 Vixen heavy barrel I sold recently had a neglected bore when I acquired it, really rough but not eroded. I used it a lot and cleaned it a lot and it shot extremely well, somewhat to my surprise since I'd intended re-barrelling it.

Had either of these been bore-scoped then I'm sure I would have been told to avoid them like the plague, but they shoot perfectly well enough for me.
 
Thanks for the help guys.

Having a good play with Quickload, if I change to a very slightly compressed (101%-102%) load of RS62 I can cut the burn temperature from 3990 to 3720 and pressure from 61,000 psi to 58,000 psi and still achieve what I want to achieve in hitting the predicted velocity node.

I'm keen on finding an answer because I'm converting another rifle to 6.5x47 Lapua specifically for LR which is likely to see a lot of rounds through it. If that burns itself out in a year I will be less than happy.
 
Thanks for the help guys.

Having a good play with Quickload, if I change to a very slightly compressed (101%-102%) load of RS62 I can cut the burn temperature from 3990 to 3720 and pressure from 61,000 psi to 58,000 psi and still achieve what I want to achieve in hitting the predicted velocity node.

I'm keen on finding an answer because I'm converting another rifle to 6.5x47 Lapua specifically for LR which is likely to see a lot of rounds through it. If that burns itself out in a year I will be less than happy.
Convert it into a .260 Rem instead then maybe?
 
I have spent a few years with the Lapua. I know it pretty well now and don't really want to start on the learning curve again. The Lapua will do what I want it to do so no need to change really.

I did look pretty hard at the 260ai. I run a 280ai which is fantastic and very nearly went down that road, but the gains are not that great and I think I'm better sticking with what I know. There are so many other factors to learn about in the LR game that I could do with reducing the variables rather than increasing them.
 
Nr 2.

Doesn't matter how long it's left between shots. If you load hott-ish with double base, all evidence points towards barrel life suffering. For deer shooting, that's a lifetime of shooting, so crack on. For target.....well, I know of some (target comp) shooters that go through barrels every 18 months to two years using double base powders and stiff loads. They shoot a lot...I perhaps get through 1000 rounds annually and they're twice to triple that. Expensive business at £750 a pop for a re-barrel!
 
Nr 2.

Doesn't matter how long it's left between shots. If you load hott-ish with double base, all evidence points towards barrel life suffering. For deer shooting, that's a lifetime of shooting, so crack on. For target.....well, I know of some (target comp) shooters that go through barrels every 18 months to two years using double base powders and stiff loads. They shoot a lot...I perhaps get through 1000 rounds annually and they're twice to triple that. Expensive business at £750 a pop for a re-barrel!

Exactly. Hence my search for a combination that's a little kinder on the throat.
 
Back
Top