Throat erosion - a word of warning
- Thread starter NigelM
- Start date
Put a Bartlein on the new rifle and don't feed it double base powders
Its a 7T Bartlein #23 and I don't think it will ever see a double base after this experience.
Good to hear, thank you.
Theoretically RS62 looks like a reasonable option for me. 150 grain bullet with a 26" barrel and a 129 grain with a 24" barrel. Very slightly compressed loads. True single based powder, reasonably temperature stable achieving good velocity.
I'm going to be trying it anyway.
I'm going to be trying it anyway.
I disagree. Any gas (or liquid) under pressure can cause erosion. Pressure begets heat. Heat and gas cut steel.~Muir
Get new barrel profile in cylinder and chop and rechamber every 1000 rounds
Loading to pressure and bscking off half a grain could have you considerably over CIP. The viht manual maintains pressure is related to wear and double base is renowned for wear
Just 2kg N550 made my 6.5x55 tbroat like sandpaper
.
Loading to pressure and bscking off half a grain could have you considerably over CIP. The viht manual maintains pressure is related to wear and double base is renowned for wear
Just 2kg N550 made my 6.5x55 tbroat like sandpaper
.
Viht 500 series is double base, 100 series is single base. So there are options there for you to explore Nigel, the 100 range.
Alliant powders are great, but have been burning hot and dirty in my mate's 6.5x47. RL16 is filthy stuff. The double base power upgrade is very noticeable compared to my preferred single base AR2209 (H4350), which of course you guys can no longer get.
One of the lessons I took on board a couple of weeks ago from a very good 1000m 6.5mm shooter, was not to chase velocity for the sake of it for target work. He's shooting Creedmoor with 136gr Scenar-L and N150. He is only about 60% up the load weight range, and getting fantastic accuracy.
My Creedmoor was stunningly accurate in the low- to mid-range of powder weights, but I ended up going higher for greater terminal performance, being a hunting rifle.
I'd be interested Nigel in whether you find LR accuracy is acceptable at slightly lower speeds than what you're accustomed to, with a commensurate improvement in barrel life.
Alliant powders are great, but have been burning hot and dirty in my mate's 6.5x47. RL16 is filthy stuff. The double base power upgrade is very noticeable compared to my preferred single base AR2209 (H4350), which of course you guys can no longer get.
One of the lessons I took on board a couple of weeks ago from a very good 1000m 6.5mm shooter, was not to chase velocity for the sake of it for target work. He's shooting Creedmoor with 136gr Scenar-L and N150. He is only about 60% up the load weight range, and getting fantastic accuracy.
My Creedmoor was stunningly accurate in the low- to mid-range of powder weights, but I ended up going higher for greater terminal performance, being a hunting rifle.
I'd be interested Nigel in whether you find LR accuracy is acceptable at slightly lower speeds than what you're accustomed to, with a commensurate improvement in barrel life.
Last edited:
Ronin
Distinguished Member
There is a very good rifle builder in the states who makes his own wildcats Kirby Allen
He only used ball powder and a 1 degree throat leade angle and achieves quite reasonable barrel life when one considers his cartridges are based on necked down 338
If you are bothered about the erosion, why not change powder now and find a single based load and in addition have your gunsmith set back the barrel .200” and re chamber
You will be back to original spec.
I’ve worn out four barrels chambered in 47 the barrel with the most rounds (a lothar Walther) had over 3000 through it before accuracy dropped beyond what I like
Barrels are expendable items
Easily changed for relatively low cost considering the rest of the kit we plough our hard earned into
He only used ball powder and a 1 degree throat leade angle and achieves quite reasonable barrel life when one considers his cartridges are based on necked down 338
If you are bothered about the erosion, why not change powder now and find a single based load and in addition have your gunsmith set back the barrel .200” and re chamber
You will be back to original spec.
I’ve worn out four barrels chambered in 47 the barrel with the most rounds (a lothar Walther) had over 3000 through it before accuracy dropped beyond what I like
Barrels are expendable items
Easily changed for relatively low cost considering the rest of the kit we plough our hard earned into
Ok stupid question time .....[emoji3061]
Why are folk obsessed with velocity?
Some just seem to want more more more FPS ....
I don’t target shoot, I get the long range you need your speed for working out drop etc
If there’s a load that’s accurate bit it’s not near max load why do folk keep chasing speed instead of accuracy / groups ?
Paul
Why are folk obsessed with velocity?
Some just seem to want more more more FPS ....
I don’t target shoot, I get the long range you need your speed for working out drop etc
If there’s a load that’s accurate bit it’s not near max load why do folk keep chasing speed instead of accuracy / groups ?
Paul
I have always chased both velocity and accuracy. Accuracy is first priority, but I always go for the fastest accurate node. My primary reason is minimising wind drift.
However, I don't like the throat erosion that goes with it and will be backing off a bit, changing away from the double base powders and coming down a bit on the pressure. I will loose a bit to the wind but if it doubles my barrel life I will put up with that.
However, I don't like the throat erosion that goes with it and will be backing off a bit, changing away from the double base powders and coming down a bit on the pressure. I will loose a bit to the wind but if it doubles my barrel life I will put up with that.
A buddy has had several PacNor barrels and has commented that they have worn much quicker than other brands tried.
I have no evidence, but I do wonder if double based powders really do accelerate barrel wear over single based. Sure, if they are used to get higher performance, then I can see why a barrel will wear more quickly. But if used to get the same muzzle velocity of say 3000fps in this instance, then I doubt there would be much difference between the two.
I have no evidence, but I do wonder if double based powders really do accelerate barrel wear over single based. Sure, if they are used to get higher performance, then I can see why a barrel will wear more quickly. But if used to get the same muzzle velocity of say 3000fps in this instance, then I doubt there would be much difference between the two.
.
You’re probably not far wrong however I would expect to see a marginal increase in erosion due to the higher flame temperature.
Stop measuring stuff....
Only the paper matters
When it starts shooting larger groups hen it’s time to get excited
One of the most accurate rifles I ever owned was a BRNO .222 with a clear section of bore about 2” long missing ALL rifling .....
Ragged holes with anything I fed it
Should never have sold it!!
A Guy Out West
Well-Known Member
You don't have to justify it, just get that new barrel your wanting.
I’m sure the deer don’t bother it’s doing
“Only 2700 “
We’re they groups not bughole ?
Paul
Malxwal
Well-Known Member
No deer have yet expressed a preference for a faster bullet, no. Good groups but more work required.
Similar threads
