Light vs Govt, manufacture process?

[wolf-r1]

I've finally received an invite from Daniel Defense to build and am looking to build the lightest upper I can without sacrificing longevity in both accuracy and wear. I am having trouble finding whether or not the DD 14.5" barrels on the 'Build your own' are all CHF. On their build site there is the option to go Gov't or Lightweight profile.

In my searches I've seen the debate over whether or not a light barrel holds accuracy over the gov't profile barrel and there doesn't seem to be the clearest answer nor is there a good answer as to how the barrel is made.

Is anyone able to shed some light on this? I prefer the lightest I can get but not at the cost of eventual wear and tear. Lastly is the weight difference going to matter? I can't see this but being a few ounces.

[ICANHITHIMMAN]

They make the barrels, did you call them? where ever you heard that about the light weight barrels is wrong they will shoot and last just like any other barrel. How do I know? I own a few!

[MistWolf]

Any barrel DD offers is likely to be more than durable enough. While many talk about CHF barrels lasting longer due to the steel being compacted and denser, the same is true for the bore of a button rifled barrel.

In any other rifle but the AR, the CHF process is used because it's a fast, economical way to produce barrels. For some reason, CHF barrels for ARs cost more.

Unless someone can show that the cost per shot of a CHF barrel is less than that of a button rifled barrel, the BR barrel is a better value.

It is my belief that the CHF process produces better consistency from barrel to barrel. Because the steel is formed over an internal mandrel, control over the actual twist rate and bore diameter is likely to be better. But barrel manufacturers have long experience producing excellent BR barrels as well

A quick https://www.m4carbine.net/nual/misc/nav_search.gif will produce other threads for more information. I used "CHF vs Button Rifled" for the following results

https://www.m4carbine.net/gtsearch.php?cx=003496919632624929056%3Adhiwgm0hbaa&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=CHF+vs+button+rifled&sa=Search&siteurl=www.m4carbine.net%2F&ref=&ss=5205j1981637j21

As far as profile goes, a heavier profile barrel can hold more heat before reaching critical temperatures. A lighter profile barrel will feel livelier and is less work for dynamic shooting. The shooter can take steps to manage heat dissipation during heavier firing schedules of a training class regardless of barrel profile. As a civilian, if I were to find myself in a self defense situation that the better heat management of the heavier profile was needed, I would be in serious trouble indeed and would be very happy if I survived long enough to have replace a shot out barrel!

[pinzgauer]

In any other rifle but the AR, the CHF process is used because it's a fast, economical way to produce barrels. For some reason, CHF barrels for ARs cost more.

While I agree with your general conclusion, it is a matter of history that what we now know of as the "Steyr" CHF process was developed to improve longevity in German MG barrels. Our own army reached the same conclusion after testing in the 70's which led to the recommendation for Steyr process CHF in MG barrels.

Whether it makes a meaningful difference now with modern steels is a can be debated, but for the high end Euro mfg's CHF was always done for durability & smoothness. And they can use any process they want, and would if it made better barrels.

It is a lower cost (less labor) method once past the large initial investment in the GFM machines, so for someone like Ruger & Remington it could be a cost reduction measure. Though my understanding was the Ruger was tired of variability in delivery & quality of barrel contractors, which led to the investment in the GFM Steyr process machines.

I'll leave it to others to debate the merits of CHF vs button. :)

[Bulletdog]

I own several of each profile. My light weight profile ones are all DD. My Gov. profile ones are BCM. There is no discernible difference in accuracy. Having shot both through classes with round counts in the hundreds per day, I also noticed no heat problems of any sort with either.

What I did notice is a big difference in the "feel" and handleability of the LW profile. I weighed the different profile uppers and the thinner profile is about 10 ounces lighter. But because that 10 oz. is out at the end of the barrel, the LW profile "feels" much lighter, and better to me. It really does affect my gun handling in a positive way.

[samuse]

The gov't profile barrel is the same as the lightweight from the barrel nut to the gas block.

For all applicable purposes the light weight will be the same as the gov't as far as accuracy, heat dissipation and longevity.

Unless you're building a clone or replica of a gov't issued gun, IMO, the gov't profile is stupid, especially on a mid-length gas barrel.

[wolf-r1]

I own several of each profile. My light weight profile ones are all DD. My Gov. profile ones are BCM. There is no discernible difference in accuracy. Having shot both through classes with round counts in the hundreds per day, I also noticed no heat problems of any sort with either.

What I did notice is a big difference in the "feel" and handleability of the LW profile. I weighed the different profile uppers and the thinner profile is about 10 ounces lighter. But because that 10 oz. is out at the end of the barrel, the LW profile "feels" much lighter, and better to me. It really does affect my gun handling in a positive way.

Thanks for all these answers. This is essentially what I am looking for. And whether or not DD's LW barrel in their build your own area is in fact CHF. I cannot call them until Monday and thought I'd ping here to see if anyone knew for certain.

[freefly]

The gov't profile barrel is the same as the lightweight from the barrel nut to the gas block.

For all applicable purposes the light weight will be the same as the gov't as far as accuracy, heat dissipation and longevity.

Unless you're building a clone or replica of a gov't issued gun, IMO, the gov't profile is stupid, especially on a mid-length gas barrel.
+1

I have a couple 14.5" LW middys, and am now addicted to "adding lightness" to future AR builds. I have a 16" Noveske Light Recce that feels like a boat anchor compared to my BCM 14.5" LW w/ MOE hand-guards. YMMV. ;)

[Badger89]

The gov't profile barrel is the same as the lightweight from the barrel nut to the gas block.

For all applicable purposes the light weight will be the same as the gov't as far as accuracy, heat dissipation and longevity.

Unless you're building a clone or replica of a gov't issued gun, IMO, the gov't profile is stupid, especially on a mid-length gas barrel.
+2

I agree that the government profile is perhaps the most poorly designed barrel profile I know of, however at least it is aptly named. Why would you thin out the barrel closer to the chamber, where it will get hotter, and then thicken it toward the muzzle, adding extra weight that stresses the thinner rear portion and causes barrel deflection as it heats up? IMO, unless you need the M203 notch, there is no logical reason to choose a government profile. Go with a lightweight profile or look at the Noveske N4 profile (thicker under the hand guards, thinner toward the muzzle). My 2 cents.

[samuse]

+2

I agree that the government profile is perhaps the most poorly designed barrel profile I know of, however at least it is aptly named. Why would you thin out the barrel closer to the chamber, where it will get hotter, and then thicken it toward the muzzle, adding extra weight that stresses the thinner rear portion and causes barrel deflection as it heats up? IMO, unless you need the M203 notch, there is no logical reason to choose a government profile. Go with a lightweight profile or look at the Noveske N4 profile (thicker under the hand guards, thinner toward the muzzle). My 2 cents.


My thoughts exactly. Both of my uppers are M4 profile, one is an A1. Not because I think it's better, but because I wanted to replicate an issued carbine from from circa ~Y2K. Dorkey reason, I know, but at least I have a reason.

Every time I see a new carbine come from BCM or Daniel Defense with the gov't profile and mid gas, I instantly think 'fail' and wanna bang my head against the wall.

[Quentin]

Thanks for all these answers. This is essentially what I am looking for. And whether or not DD's LW barrel in their build your own area is in fact CHF. I cannot call them until Monday and thought I'd ping here to see if anyone knew for certain.

My DD 16" LW midlength is CHF, I'd expect the 14.5" to be the same.

[Marler5811]

Currently, Daniel Defense only manufactures CHF Barrels. We no longer manufacture Cut or Button Swaged Barrels. The process is the same for all hammer forged barrels up until we actually turn the barrels to their final profile.

Obviously, LW Barrels are not going to be quite as accurate as say a gov't profile they aren't inaccurate by any means. FWIWs, I'm shooting a 14.5" LW Mid and have acheived 1.5" 10 shot groups at 100 yards with a 4MOA Micro and 62 grain M855.

Longevity is of no concern. you should be able get 15-20K rnds out of our barrels regardless of profile.

S/F
Joe

[TMS951]

I would look at their S2W profile if you are concerned about the LW profile.

Personally I think the govt profile is stupid. Its got more diameter where you do not want or need it. Daniel Defense recognizes this, what they consider to be the optimum "strength 2 weight" profile is almost the total opposite of the govt profile.

I have a 14.5" carbine DD chf LW barrel, I have not had any accuracy issues with it in its intended purpose. If I want accuracy I use the right tool for the job and grab my SPR.

For a light carbine the LW chf Barrel fits the bill perfectly.

[justin_247]

Personally I think the govt profile is stupid. Its got more diameter where you do not want or need it. Daniel Defense recognizes this, what they consider to be the optimum "strength 2 weight" profile is almost the total opposite of the govt profile.

+1

I think DD should abandon the govt profile for all of its middies.

I can understand keeping the 14.5" and 16" carbine barrels with the govt profile in order to accomodate a grenade launcher, for those who require it or are into that sort of thing, but for middies this is a moot point.

DD should do what Noveske, Centurion, and Spike's have done with their middies - adopt a medium contour behind the gas block that tapers to a light contour past it. That makes sense.

The S2W barrels can continue fill the HBAR / Bull profile niche.

[Strykeback]

Has anyone compared noveskes N4 medium contour to the DD lightweight. I know its an extra 8 ounces heavier but puts the weight under the handguard but it does get a double layer of chrome lining.

Was all set to order a DD LW 16" but friends mentioned it would heat up or open up pretty quick in classes. The only positive I see being that I can order the noveske already with pinned gas block and tube and I only ever see DDs as stripped barrels.

[Bushytale]

My Noveske N4 Light 14.5 Mid gas is .700 at the smallest point under the HG, .750 at the gas block and .680 from the gas block to the MD. The weight is 25 oz. or same as a M4 carbine 14.5. For me it seemed like a good all around choice.

[samuse]

...
Obviously, LW Barrels are not going to be quite as accurate as say a gov't profile they aren't inaccurate by any means. FWIWs, I'm shooting a 14.5" LW Mid and have acheived 1.5" 10 shot groups at 100 yards with a 4MOA Micro and 62 grain M855...
S/F
Joe

That's impressive. Do you really think it would've done any better if the muzzle end of the barrel was thicker?

[RogerinTPA]

I would look at their S2W profile if you are concerned about the LW profile.

Personally I think the govt profile is stupid. Its got more diameter where you do not want or need it. Daniel Defense recognizes this, what they consider to be the optimum "strength 2 weight" profile is almost the total opposite of the govt profile.

I have a 14.5" carbine DD chf LW barrel, I have not had any accuracy issues with it in its intended purpose. If I want accuracy I use the right tool for the job and grab my SPR.

For a light carbine the LW chf Barrel fits the bill perfectly.

Agreed. I often wonder why some manufacturer hasn't produced a barrel that is thicker (medium profile) near the chamber, then gradually turned to a lightweight profile towards the port.

[justin_247]

Agreed. I often wonder why some manufacturer hasn't produced a barrel that is thicker (medium profile) near the chamber, then gradually turned to a lightweight profile towards the port.

Rainier Arms has a "MEDCON" profile, that they use for some of their SS barrels, which does exactly that. Spike's also does this with their FN "Optimum" CHF barrels.

[BoringGuy45]

Rainier Arms has a "MEDCON" profile, that they use for some of their SS barrels, which does exactly that. Spike's also does this with their FN "Optimum" CHF barrels.

On Spike's website, it lists the weight as 26.4 oz for a midlength, 16" Optimum barrel. How much does a lightweight 16" Daniel Defense barrel weigh?

[SteveS]

Several years ago I watched everybody build 15 lb tacticool carbines! These days it is light weight builds, what a world.

[RyanB]

I'd like to see a quick step down from the chamber and .7" straight to the muzzle.

Currently using lightweight and Centurion M4 barrels. Don't like government.