View Full Version : 100,000rd Noveske CHF barrel on TFB
jerrysimons
10-30-16, 10:30
Holy gas-port erosion batman! That barrel took a lot of abuse.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/10/27/ever-wondered-80-100k-rounds-fired-ar-15-barrel/
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/shot-out-barrel-gas-port-e1477188776344.jpg
I would say that is not bad for 100K rounds
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
jerrysimons
10-30-16, 11:01
I would say that is not bad for 100K rounds
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I don't mean to imply it is. Just amazing to see in side the barrel after that many rounds.
Matt said that this barrel was grouping in the area of 18″ at 35 yards or so
Thats pretty bad.
The authors guess of a MG rental place is about the only thing that makes sense.
jerrysimons
10-30-16, 11:05
Thats pretty bad.
The authors guess of a MG rental place is about the only thing that makes sense.
Yeah probably right. Selling the bang and recoil with the target probably ten yards with people who likely couldn't hold the fire in the center of mass with a new barrel.
I am more curious about the firing schedule of the stainless barrel still shooting 3 moa-ish after 30-40K rounds.
Ned Christiansen
10-30-16, 11:06
Very interesting, can we get a verification of the round count? Bottom one, I have a few sectioned barrels at ~ 25K that look about like that, maybe a little less erosion. Neither bore looks too bad in that area, and what I can see of the chamber case, well there is some throat left at least. Would love to know what the ammo was.
Since this is about a Noveske product...... hope this is not an intrusion on the OP but I think they belong together.....
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo125/NedChristiansen/DSC00868.jpg
jerrysimons
10-30-16, 11:26
Very interesting, can we get a verification of the round count? Bottom one, I have a few sectioned barrels at ~ 25K that look about like that, maybe a little less erosion. Neither bore looks too bad in that area, and what I can see of the chamber case, well there is some throat left at least. Would love to know what the ammo was.
Since this is about a Noveske product...... hope this is not an intrusion on the OP but I think they belong together.....
IMG]http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo125/NedChristiansen/DSC00868.jpg[/IMG]
Wow. What is the round count on the Pig? Proof that it is containing blast.
Question. If rifle suppressors are generally maintenance why would that be any different.
Dumb question maybe
Ned Christiansen
10-30-16, 12:21
That's a good question that I'm not qualified to answer having sectioned zero suppressors. "They" say it doesn't happen and I believe it but don't know from actual experience nor the science of why. My guess is that the KX3 presents such a "hook" or undercut for the gasses to go into, where rifle suppressors tend to have faces that don't exceed vertical. That area of the KX3 gets high pressure but not much "flow" per se, which would tend to keep the particulates moving. They go in there and get blast-deposited and the next shot just pushes them on that much harder plus the next coat.
That's me pretending I have a degree in flow dynamics.
I think the number of rounds on that KX3 without cleaning is 20-40K. It now has a bunch of verdigris leaching out all by itself, I mean. I have not put any kind of solvent on the residue caked in there. So there is a lot of bullet jacket in the mix.
This thing had its own thread a few years ago:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?135759-You-filthy-pig!!-KX3&highlight=
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?190010-Loss-of-suppression-in-AAC-SPR-M4&highlight=loss+suppression
That suppressor gained 8oz in 16k rounds!
556BlackRifle
10-30-16, 13:29
Pretty impressive results especially for an MG rental place.
jerrysimons
10-30-16, 15:18
Question. If rifle suppressors are generally maintenance why would that be any different.
Dumb question maybe
Good question. Ned's point also interesting. I think the blast baffle in most cans like Ned mentioned is more vertical, it takes the brunt of the particulate and unburnt powder. The rest of the baffles are often more angled. I know Surefire includes a nice brush with their cans. I think I remember reading a mild cleaning procedure for sealed cans at infrequent intervals. See if I can't find it.
Ammo, caliber and barrel length are going to be a big factor, dirty powders, overall powder volume, and short barrels resulting in incomplete powder burn. Somewhere I read that high pressure/supersonic ammo is self cleaning in sealed riflecans. That has got to only be to a point though.
Serious Account
10-30-16, 15:41
Looking at the angle that the erosion occurred, maybe that's why some manufacture went with angled gas port?
jerrysimons
10-30-16, 15:45
Looking at the angle that the erosion occurred, maybe that's why some manufacture went with angled gas port?
I was just wondering the same thing. Does any one know which direction LMT drills the angled gas-port on their MRP and MWS barrels?
Towards the muzzle to give more length to the barrel port and to push the size of the erosion bulb away from the port. The erosion still happens, that wire drawing is a given wear with use. If it was pointed towards the chamber the erosion bulb would wear that area at a higher rate due to the mass seeing the effect.
One of the problems you run into though with angled gas ports is that the angle gives more time for erosive gasses to pass the bullet base to add to the erosion over a perpendicular one. The balance is what the eroded cavity deters from the system than a reduced perpendicular gas orifice can do. Both have their highlights, there is no free lunch here.
jerrysimons
10-30-16, 17:12
Thanks Tom,
This thread has some great info on the topic:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?170289-Gas-Port-Erosion-of-AR-15-Barrels
jerrysimons
10-30-16, 17:56
Towards the muzzle to give more length to the barrel port and to push the size of the erosion bulb away from the port. The erosion still happens, that wire drawing is a given wear with use. If it was pointed towards the chamber the erosion bulb would wear that area at a higher rate due to the mass seeing the effect.
One of the problems you run into though with angled gas ports is that the angle gives more time for erosive gasses to pass the bullet base to add to the erosion over a perpendicular one. The balance is what the eroded cavity deters from the system than a reduced perpendicular gas orifice can do. Both have their highlights, there is no free lunch here.
So the angled port slightly increases erosion on the muzzle side of the gas-port opening but minimizes the effect of the erosion on the function of the gas-port by lengthening the gas-port hole and in a direction away from the erosion.
Question: does the angled gas-port increase the erosion by function of the gas-port hole opening on the interior of the bore being larger due to the angle elongating the drilled diameter at the opening (elliptic) or due the angled and thus deeper port hole requiring a larger diameter gas-port size to achieve the same effective orafice a perpendicular but shorter port hole would? Or both I suppose?
The area in the bore increases with with more port angle due to the gas port angle from perpendicular. That area gives more time for gasses to escape the gas seal behind the bullet to erode the areas it passes with time, barrel and bullet. The compromise for a platform in intended function is a balance of gas port restriction and required precision for useful life.
That doesn't mean that 90 degrees or 135 is bad, just a tool for the job. Pick your tool.
dreamcrusher8307
10-30-16, 18:29
Wow. I'm surprised (perhaps wrongly) that the rifling is still somewhat present. Any of you SMEs care to venture a guess as to what % of the original rifling depth is left on that barrel?
I have a few 63A barrels that are probably close to worst case examples of throat erosion and alligator skin towards the muzzle and can still cycle, they can still run with help. The pocket by the gas port is eroded greatly and looks terrible from a boroscope. That does not mean that they satisfy the accuracy requirement. They just throw keyholes, but they can run.
I was just wondering the same thing. Does any one know which direction LMT drills the angled gas-port on their MRP and MWS barrels?
Sorry for the off topic question, but does LMT drill the gas ports at an angle only on the MRP and MWS lines? Or do the basic Defender 2000 uppers also have angled gas ports?
jerrysimons
10-30-16, 19:59
The area in the bore increases with with more port angle due to the gas port angle from perpendicular. That area gives more time for gasses to escape the gas seal behind the bullet to erode the areas it passes with time, barrel and bullet. The compromise for a platform in intended function is a balance of gas port restriction and required precision for useful life.
That doesn't mean that 90 degrees or 135 is bad, just a tool for the job. Pick your tool.
I see. It seems LMT was working at minimizing the ROF increase over the relatively short life of say a MK 18 barrel at 7k rounds while maintaining combat grade accuracy. Which shoot, back to the original post, 3 moa out of a stainless barrel w/ >30k rounds! That is still milspec accurate. That is the barrel I really want more info on.
Also, relative to gas-port erosion, is not the chamber throat going to wear out first before cyclic rate due to gas-port erosion does it in?
Holy gas-port erosion batman!
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/10/27/ever-wondered-80-100k-rounds-fired-ar-15-barrel/
A little information is a dangerous thing, especially when we really have no real idea what the story is behind these pictures. I know that when John Noveske was alive, an employee leaking info out in a manner like this would have been an immediate termination. Without the legit info behind the barrels, it is only a matter of time before rumors and guessing starts, and things go down hill. The author of this story has no info at all, and has guessed it is a machine gun rental, but I don't know of any MG rentals that also use Noveske SS barrels. Even if they do, it is still a guessing game, and that doesn't help anyone.
For people who are new to firearms, there is a large difference between 80k andn 100k, but even more important is the manner in which they were used. Full Auto testing is considerably more destructive than regular shooting at a range.
jerrysimons
10-30-16, 21:19
A little information is a dangerous thing, especially when we really have no real idea what the story is behind these pictures. I know that when John Noveske was alive, an employee leaking info out in a manner like this would have been an immediate termination. Without the legit info behind the barrels, it is only a matter of time before rumors and guessing starts, and things go down hill. The author of this story has no info at all, and has guessed it is a machine gun rental, but I don't know of any MG rentals that also use Noveske SS barrels. Even if they do, it is still a guessing game, and that doesn't help anyone.
For people who are new to firearms, there is a large difference between 80k andn 100k, but even more important is the manner in which they were used. Full Auto testing is considerably more destructive than regular shooting at a range.
I agree info is wanting. Do you think this post is putting Noveske in a bad light? I don't think this makes Noveske look bad. What barrel could withstand the kind of punishment without port erosion? I am flatly impressed if that stainless barrel is still holding 3 Moa at >30k rounds. Though I would guess it was not Full auto or it would looks and shoot worse than reported.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?190010-Loss-of-suppression-in-AAC-SPR-M4&highlight=loss+suppression
That suppressor gained 8oz in 16k rounds!
My surefire weighs around 20oz now. It's barely used twin is about 17oz.
I agree info is wanting. Do you think this post is putting Noveske in a bad light? I don't think this makes Noveske look bad. What barrel could withstand the kind of punishment without port erosion? I am flatly impressed if that stainless barrel is still holding 3 Moa at >30k rounds. Though I would guess it was not Full auto or it would looks and shoot worse than reported.
Just wanted to clarify that this is a CHF barrel which means that it is a double chrome lined steel barrel, not stainless.
On another note, I totally agree that 100k is an impressive round count and it makes my stiffie for Noveske even harder...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jerrysimons
10-31-16, 01:20
Just wanted to clarify that this is a CHF barrel which means that it is a double chrome lined steel barrel, not stainless.
On another note, I totally agree that 100k is an impressive round count and it makes my stiffie for Noveske even harder...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Did you read the linked post? There were three barrels 1 CHF, 2 SS
Just wanted to clarify that this is a CHF barrel which means that it is a double chrome lined steel barrel, not stainless.
On another note, I totally agree that 100k is an impressive round count and it makes my stiffie for Noveske even harder...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Made me hard for palmetto state armory!
(Or maybe FN, who actually made the barrel you focused on).
FN makes awesome barrels.
Noveske made a few barrels that were absolutely sick house. I think he used 17-7, but with a 300%+ tool wear rate, only a few were made.
jerrysimons
10-31-16, 01:45
Made me hard for palmetto state armory!
(Or maybe FN, who actually made the barrel you focused on).
FN makes awesome barrels.
Noveske made a few barrels that were absolutely sick house. I think he used 17-7, but with a 300%+ tool wear rate, only a few were made.
I mean the barrel is useless at that point but any barrel would be after that kind of treatment. However it would be worth noting if 18" at 36yds was keyholing or a mostly stabilized bullet. That is a difference attesting to durability but like Stickman said there is not enough info to make this photos actually useful.
What's the service life of a SAW barrel?
I mean the barrel is useless at that point but any barrel would be after that kind of treatment. However it would be worth noting if 18" at 36yds was keyholing or a mostly stabilized bullet. That is a difference attesting to durability but like Stickman said there is not enough info to make this photos actually useful.
What's the service life of a SAW barrel?
That sort of shotgun pattern group size, was most definitely NOT a stabilized bullet.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Who wants an AR-15 smoothbore musket?
jerrysimons
10-31-16, 16:11
That sort of shotgun pattern group size, was most definitely NOT a stabilized bullet.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Rog. Anyway fascinating to see the inside of a toasted barrel. Here 'learnt me some stuff about wear.
What is the first part of the barrel to wear that majorly affects accuracy if cyclic rate could otherwise be accounted for, say with a gas-block insert regulating the effective flow at lower pressures and not taking the beating inside the bore the GP does? Throat erosion, gas port erosion? The answer may be firing schedule dependent I suppose...
Who wants an AR-15 smoothbore musket?
For sale, LNIB!
I agree info is wanting. Do you think this post is putting Noveske in a bad light? I don't think this makes Noveske look bad. What barrel could withstand the kind of punishment without port erosion? I am flatly impressed if that stainless barrel is still holding 3 Moa at >30k rounds. Though I would guess it was not Full auto or it would looks and shoot worse than reported.
I think it certainly has the ability to. It is only a matter of time before people change this info to say their PSA reject barrel is just as good, or post a barrel that supposedly has the same amount of rounds through it that looks better, shoots better, or some similar claim. If it doesn't happen in this thread, it will in another one.
I think it certainly has the ability to. It is only a matter of time before people change this info to say their PSA reject barrel is just as good, or post a barrel that supposedly has the same amount of rounds through it that looks better, shoots better, or some similar claim. If it doesn't happen in this thread, it will in another one.
People already make those claims all the time. It's up to places like this to discern fact from fiction. In and of itself, I see this kind of information as educational. If anything, the performance of the stainless barrel is a testament of Noveske quality and not a slight against their reputation.
People already make those claims all the time. It's up to places like this to discern fact from fiction. In and of itself, I see this kind of information as educational. If anything, the performance of the stainless barrel is a testament of Noveske quality and not a slight against their reputation.
Go ahead and discern fact from fiction on the original post. Let me know what part is what.
I take nothing from the original post as educational as there is not enough credible info. To each their own. What happens is people fill in what they think, they guess, or they want to believe.
ETA- From your post I can see that you and I are on two different wave lengths with this, so you are going to look at my comment and my post a different way. :-)
Go ahead and discern fact from fiction on the original post. Let me know what part is what.
I take nothing from the original post as educational as there is not enough credible info. To each their own. What happens is people fill in what they think, they guess, or they want to believe.
ETA- From your post I can see that you and I are on two different wave lengths with this, so you are going to look at my comment and my post a different way. :-)
I completely understand where you are coming from. But, I do find it useful as an example of what gas port erosion looks like in an extreme case. And I don't read anything else into it. If someone tries to use this as a case against Noveske, that's just silly. There's not enough information to draw any conclusions at all, only minimal observations.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
jerrysimons
10-31-16, 21:32
I completely understand where you are coming from. But, I do find it useful as an example of what gas port erosion looks like in an extreme case. And I don't read anything else into it. If someone tries to use this as a case against Noveske, that's just silly. There's not enough information to draw any conclusions at all, only minimal observations.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
My original wording could have been more nuanced. I added a little in edit to mention "abuse."
The original author on TFB was pretty clear on that part. I don't think any knowledgeable person could look at that barrel and think what a POS? Trolls need to be set straight and there are always trolls.
Which goes back to Stickmans point, it is bad press for not much more than a companies hard earned name to end up next to photos of some jacked up barrels. It will be miss interpreted by someone.
Go ahead and discern fact from fiction on the original post. Let me know what part is what.
I take nothing from the original post as educational as there is not enough credible info. To each their own. What happens is people fill in what they think, they guess, or they want to believe.
ETA- From your post I can see that you and I are on two different wave lengths with this, so you are going to look at my comment and my post a different way. :-)
Yeah, I mind of view it like going to a junk yard and looking at wrecked cars to determine the safest brand. Graphic and worthless, but still an interesting field trip.
And I still hold that a barrel will deep throat a throat erosion gauge like a Brazilian porn star, well past the reject mark before gas port erosion ever becomes an issue, so gas port erosion is really a non-issue to me.
jerrysimons
11-01-16, 01:53
Yeah, I mind of view it like going to a junk yard and looking at wrecked cars to determine the safest brand. Graphic and worthless, but still an interesting field trip.
correct, maybe I should have just found a toasted barrel photo on google but that would have preceded the provocation of thought the blog post provided.
And I still hold that a barrel will deep throat a throat erosion gauge like a Brazilian porn star, well past the reject mark before gas port erosion ever becomes an issue, so gas port erosion is really a non-issue to me.
An increase in cyclic rate is probably not going to be noticed by most shooting semi-auto unsuppressed and who don't obsess over tuned guns. You answered my question. Which I also just found on pg. 49 of http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/taylor.pdf
This whole thread should be a subsection to this thread (glad I found it):
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?170289-Gas-Port-Erosion-of-AR-15-Barrels
An increase in cyclic rate is probably not going to be noticed by most shooting semi-auto unsuppressed and who don't obsess over tuned guns. You answered my question. Which I also just found on pg. 49 of http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2006smallarms/taylor.pdf
This whole thread should be a subsection to this thread (glad I found it):
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?170289-Gas-Port-Erosion-of-AR-15-Barrels
The PP presentation says that the gauges are only 60% accurate, yet that's what they use per the TM's for replacement of barrels. Well, it's just one of the metrics that they use. breech bore erosion, headspace, muzzle erosion and bore straightness.
Most of the issues I ever had with the gauging was from lack of cleanliness by the client prior to bringing the weapons in for service. And that can be a real problem regarding barrels. Dirty barrels can make an erosion gauge or headspace not gauge properly and seem good when they aren't or if bad enough, not allow a bore straightness gauge pass when it should.
I believe that's where the majority of that 40% failure rate of gauging actually comes from.
Also, the PP presentation overstates things a bit as it's really just a sales pitch for shot counters. Some of the statements regarding cracks in the bolt, etc. are pure BS. I 86'd plenty of bolts for cracked lugs that I found without a microscope or chemical testing. That's why SARK's come with magnifying glasses.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.