Doing a test of some semi light weight precision barrels.

[nickforney]

Figured you guys may be interested in what we are up to. Started off that someone won a Larue barrel and asked me to test it out. Kind of morphed into something bigger and we are continuing to work on it.

We started a website here to help show the build up and execution of this test and for follow on tests you can get it at http://www.scienceofthegun.com/?page_id=30

The elevator pitch is that we will test a criterion hybrid, larue predatar and ballistic advantage hanson in matching built uppers. We will put several types of quality ammo through them in 10 shot groups with the shooter unknowing what barrel brand or ammo type he is firing. We are shooting this all over veterans day weekend and will have data up after we get it all figured. There is a ridiculous amount of background and it can all be found on the site.

We are planning follow on tests with several other brands and are just trying to get it all ironed out. If you have any suggestions I would be happy to hear them.

[Jewell]

Damn. Sounds like you're putting the work into this one. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out.

[sinister]

AWESOMENESS.

At the USAMU we did this fairly often. We buy and try/use barrels from all manufacturers, assemble them in some fairly common configurations, and go to town testing them bolted into fixed carriage rests.

http://accurateshooter.net/pix/amuchron1601.jpg
http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/manmachine1402.jpg
http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/philosophy01.jpg

We were often surprised at how good some cheaper brands shot...at first. Some would shoot bugholes for around 1200 rounds, then completely go to sh!t. Don't know if it was from metallurgy or what, but for the first 1200 rounds you were damn near invincible. Unfortunately the wheels fell off one guy's rifle at Camp Perry so he swapped out his upper -- too late to salvage his rank standings after the second day.


http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/manmachine1403.jpg

[SeriousStudent]

This is very interesting, thank you for doing this.

[kirkland]

Very interested in seeing the predatar barrel results, been wanting to build one.

[Ironman8]

Looking forward to the BA barrel results! Thanks for putting this together.

[ColtSeavers]

Another thank you in advance here.

[czgunner]

Very cool. Following.

[556BlackRifle]

I look forward to your next update. Thanks!

[gaijin]

Also looking forward to your results.
I have both BA and Criterion barrels on builds.
Interested to see if your results mirror my experience.

[nickforney]

AWESOMENESS.

At the USAMU we did this fairly often. We buy and try/use barrels from all manufacturers, assemble them in some fairly common configurations, and go to town testing them bolted into fixed carriage rests.

http://accurateshooter.net/pix/amuchron1601.jpg
http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/manmachine1402.jpg
http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/philosophy01.jpg

We were often surprised at how good some cheaper brands shot...at first. Some would shoot bugholes for around 1200 rounds, then completely go to sh!t. Don't know if it was from metallurgy or what, but for the first 1200 rounds you were damn near invincible. Unfortunately the wheels fell off one guy's rifle at Camp Perry so he swapped out his upper -- too late to salvage his rank standings after the second day.


http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/manmachine1403.jpg
Good info thanks for sharing. We are shooting one round with bipod and squeeze bag and the second in lead sled. The guy shooting the bipod round was a former USAMU guy as well. I would love to have a ransom set up but that is not in the works.

Glad you guys are interested. I have always enjoyed Molons work and I figured we could do something similar.

[MrTuna]

Awesome! I just bought a BA Hansen .223 Wylde Middy barrel for my lightweight upper build.

[nickforney]

I wanted to bump this back up and say that we completed our test last weekend and everything went well although slow. We are processing stuff and posting it up as we go. www.scienceofthegun.com has all the info. So far we have dumped data for IMI, CBC and FGMM 77. We have the ASYM 77 wraping up and should be on the site tomorrow and the rest will all be on the way. All three barrels functioned good throughout the test and it was nice to shoot 600 rounds of match ammo over two days.
http://i0.wp.com/www.scienceofthegun.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FGMM-77-10-AND-5-SHOT-WATERMARK.png?resize=546%2C1024

[MrTuna]

Looking good! I have been following your testing. I have a question regarding your testing. Didn't you have multiple shooters use each upper and each ammo? I'm wondering why there is only 3 targets for each barrel with each ammo type. I may have read the methodology wrong.

Thanks!

[Joe Mamma]

I wanted to bump this back up and say that we completed our test last weekend and everything went well although slow. We are processing stuff and posting it up as we go. www.scienceofthegun.com has all the info. So far we have dumped data for IMI, CBC and FGMM 77. We have the ASYM 77 wraping up and should be on the site tomorrow and the rest will all be on the way. All three barrels functioned good throughout the test and it was nice to shoot 600 rounds of match ammo over two days.

Excellent. Thank you very much for doing this.

Joe Mamma

[556BlackRifle]

Thanks for the update Nick!

[nickforney]

Looking good! I have been following your testing. I have a question regarding your testing. Didn't you have multiple shooters use each upper and each ammo? I'm wondering why there is only 3 targets for each barrel with each ammo type. I may have read the methodology wrong.

Thanks!
The original plan was to have 2 shooters both shoot a ten round group. We had lots of members ask for 5 round groups as well so we instead have one shooter who fired all 10 round groups and the second to shoot two five round groups. Most of the five round groups if mashed together would be closer to the 10 round size. It is all about metrics at that point. The fact that all shots are logged also makes things seem huge in comparison to what many shooters would report. We will continue to dump ammo data in the future and will generally do more with fewer types of rounds. The test here started with one barrel and split into three. The same happened with ammo lots of people wanted chronograph data for the ammo types and sent us the ammo to get good data with.

[MrTuna]

The original plan was to have 2 shooters both shoot a ten round group. We had lots of members ask for 5 round groups as well so we instead have one shooter who fired all 10 round groups and the second to shoot two five round groups. Most of the five round groups if mashed together would be closer to the 10 round size. It is all about metrics at that point. The fact that all shots are logged also makes things seem huge in comparison to what many shooters would report. We will continue to dump ammo data in the future and will generally do more with fewer types of rounds. The test here started with one barrel and split into three. The same happened with ammo lots of people wanted chronograph data for the ammo types and sent us the ammo to get good data with.

Thanks for everything you guys are doing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Coal Dragger]

So from what I can tell that Criterion barrel is number 2 in the spread sheets. Looks like the most consistent of the 3.

[Stickman]

One of the companies involved has been stated multiple times to pay off people, typically in product, so I'm almost interested in seeing if this is legit or not. No need to take offense, if you are legit it is a simple statement to let you know what you are dealing with, and that you might get external feedback which is less than desirable to you or be asked to change it.

[ColtSeavers]

While I thank you for the testing, the ambiguity of barrel # vs brand with no (readily apparent) correlation between the two is odd. Perhaps I've missed something?

[nickforney]

While I thank you for the testing, the ambiguity of barrel # vs brand with no (readily apparent) correlation between the two is odd. Perhaps I've missed something?

You have missed something. It was a blind test. Right now we are concentrating on the AMMO side of the house. As stick mentioned above one of the three companies has had some pretty outlandish claims. Of those claims was one of these barrels shooting half moa over five groups of five. We tested the barrels in the exact same set up and tried to not know or care which barrel or ammo we were shooting. None of them shot half moa repeatedly. I was finally able to finish processing the rest of the ammos and have started working on the barrel overviews. Im not even entirely sure how they line up so far or which shot the best. As for now we will continue to drop an ammo summery a day while we continue to work. We did some chronograph work using some tula and hornady steel match as well which are in the chronograph data section. I have two of the uppers here and hope to get out in the near future and do some more 10 shot groups between the BA and Larue uppers before I send the larue out to other people to shoot various groups with some of the same ammo we tested.

Hopefully in the near future we will have all kinds of graphs and visuals showing the different ammo types being shot through the barrels and what mean radius each shot over the course of our little window of shooting and data collection. It is all of course fallible as it is just a snap shot of the barrels and rounds for those particular conditions but we had no walk on water moment with any of the three barrels.

Thanks for the support guys.

[MrTuna]

Speaking for myself I think you have already shown that all three are 1MOA capable barrels with the right ammo and shooter. I just happen to be building an upper with one of them.

[ColtSeavers]

You have missed something. It was a blind test. Right now we are concentrating on the AMMO side of the house. As stick mentioned above one of the three companies has had some pretty outlandish claims. Of those claims was one of these barrels shooting half moa over five groups of five. We tested the barrels in the exact same set up and tried to not know or care which barrel or ammo we were shooting. None of them shot half moa repeatedly. I was finally able to finish processing the rest of the ammos and have started working on the barrel overviews. Im not even entirely sure how they line up so far or which shot the best. As for now we will continue to drop an ammo summery a day while we continue to work. We did some chronograph work using some tula and hornady steel match as well which are in the chronograph data section. I have two of the uppers here and hope to get out in the near future and do some more 10 shot groups between the BA and Larue uppers before I send the larue out to other people to shoot various groups with some of the same ammo we tested.

Hopefully in the near future we will have all kinds of graphs and visuals showing the different ammo types being shot through the barrels and what mean radius each shot over the course of our little window of shooting and data collection. It is all of course fallible as it is just a snap shot of the barrels and rounds for those particular conditions but we had no walk on water moment with any of the three barrels.

Thanks for the support guys.

Thank you VERY much for this breakdown and again for the testing.

[nickforney]

Speaking for myself I think you have already shown that all three are 1MOA capable barrels with the right ammo and shooter. I just happen to be building an upper with one of them.

When it comes down to the weight and profile of them I have been impressed with the general accuracy of them. Calling them 1 moa capable is a stretch though. I have never been a fan of padding extreme spread numbers. Many people see that MOA reading as the end all be all. I have been pretty happy in general with the ATC values. I think I will continue to enjoy and shoot the ballistic advantage which I will keep but I have several other barrels that have regularly shot superior groups. I have been looking for cheaper software that can do composite groups with multiple individual targets. It seems the best option is RSI shooting lab which is a bit out of the range I want to spend to share info with people on the internet. I believe the ten round groups we have been sharing have been a much clearer picture of actual expected precision in any of these barrels and ammo types. With many of the 5 shot groups if they were put into a composite ten shot they would grow in size by a good bit.

It all comes down to expectations and metrics.

[MrTuna]

I understand. I didn't buy it based on advertising promises and I like the weight etc. It's going to be more accurate than me and definitely usable for the training I am doing [emoji3].


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HelloLarry]

AWESOMENESS.

At the USAMU we did this fairly often. We buy and try/use barrels from all manufacturers, assemble them in some fairly common configurations, and go to town testing them bolted into fixed carriage rests.

We were often surprised at how good some cheaper brands shot...at first. Some would shoot bugholes for around 1200 rounds, then completely go to sh!t. Don't know if it was from metallurgy or what, but for the first 1200 rounds you were damn near invincible. Unfortunately the wheels fell off one guy's rifle at Camp Perry so he swapped out his upper -- too late to salvage his rank standings after the second day.


Too bad the AMU never publishes any of this. The AMU isn't advancing the state of the art even though our tax dollars are paying for them to play.

I want to thank the OP for being so gracious as to not only share their results, but fund the testing as well.

[nickforney]

Too bad the AMU never publishes any of this. The AMU isn't advancing the state of the art even though our tax dollars are paying for them to play.

I want to thank the OP for being so gracious as to not only share their results, but fund the testing as well.

To be fair some of the cost was offset by military buddies so we only foot a chunk of the bill. AMU does some interesting stuff and they sometimes write up findings. I do agree with you that it is a bit odd that they test things with tax dollars to use against other shooters and don't openly share the data they get.

[nickforney]

We dropped info for the barrels today. Took a while to get through all the ammo information but all extreme spread info is posted here at http://www.scienceofthegun.com/?p=236

I want to thank you guys here at m4carbine.net. I don't get to spend as much time online as I would like. The other site has more numbers but hits on the website show about equal numbers of views between ar15 and here. There have been 7 times as many people who have viewed the thread on arf but more people from m4 have spent time actually reviewing the different groups which is good to see. I just hope people are enjoying or getting something out of the data.

[MrTuna]

I should probably wait for all the data to come out but do you think this data will be useful for determining which of the tested ammo the different barrels seem to prefer?

Nevermind it's all up.

[Coal Dragger]

Man that Criterion barrel turned in nice results.

Who says a chrome lined barrel can't shoot?

Being the heaviest barrel, how much of the consistency displayed by the Criterion was the result of stiffness due to being a heavier contour?

[nickforney]

Man that Criterion barrel turned in nice results.

Who says a chrome lined barrel can't shoot?

Being the heaviest barrel, how much of the consistency displayed by the Criterion was the result of stiffness due to being a heavier contour?
Good question. I have no idea.

As tuna mentioned the barrel comparisons were dropped as was a concept of price for performance. I found it interesting that these barrels all hung pretty well considering the light weight of them. The criterion was the heaviest but I don't recalling feeling this huge noticeable weight change in the recoil and ride of the gun when shooting. Remember when we fired the guns we didn't know which we were shooting.

Over the next couple of days we hope to drop pictures of the bore scopes we did before firing the test. You can find which barrels had gas ports in the groove. Each barrel will have a break down that talks about which round it liked, specs and cost. We will compare weight (which was already in the pictures). After the three barrel profiles are discussed we should be able to get out an ATC comparison. I don't know how they will fall. I have gone through so much info on these that I mostly just log what I am looking for. I am curious if the barrels will come out in the same pecking order or if something else will show up.

Either way thanks for checking out the site. We have had over a thousand views today which is pretty crazy considering we just decided to do it on a whim. We will be doing an ultralight shoot out in the future with fewer rounds but it is something we are looking forward to.

[nickforney]

Again I wanna thank people for the insight and help along the way. We posted a master post that makes it easier to navigate through the data. I know the website is a bit crude as we aren't web designers. http://www.scienceofthegun.com/?p=307 this is the master post.

[Bugs]

Outstanding work. Thank you for this information and for the research that went into it.

PS - I'm in IC. Beers are on me when you're coming through town.

[vicious_cb]

Thank you for all your hard work. Ill have to read over the results probably several times to process all the data you provided. :)

A quick question, I noticed that there was no mention of what barrel steel the Larue barrel uses which is pretty important considering there is a pretty big difference in the life of a stainless vs chrome lined barrel.

[markm]

WThere have been 7 times as many people who have viewed the thread on arf but more people from m4 have spent time actually reviewing the different groups which is good to see.

If you were comparing color matches, you'd be hitting the mark with the ArfTards.

[MrTuna]

I have looked over the data and it's good stuff! I'm assuming since you guys used Match type ammo that your were wringing as much accuracy as possible out of the setups. If you do any future experiments I would like to throw out the idea of running defensive ammo.