View Full Version : Odin Works Ultralight 16" .223 Wylde barrel: quick function report
There is nothing wrong with the barrel, but it does have a few quirks.
Some people out there might remember I was working on a light(er) weight "utility" carbine concept that I am now calling the "90% Carbine" (for reasons that will be explained when I finally write up all the stuff I've done). For various reasons, I selected for builds some 16" barrels that seemed to have promise: Wilson Combat Ranger, Wilson Combat fluted (like the old "Paul Howe"), BCM ELW, Faxon Gunner, a BCM M4 and a Green Mountain M6 as "controls", and, finally, an Odin Works Ultralight. I have no complaints about the Ultralight, and I do like the barrel taper in front of the journal for various reasons, but I thought I would share some of my experiences with the membership because I was unable to find a lot of information about the Odin Works barrels before buying it some months ago.
Normally I like a government profile-weight barrel because of the smallish effect heat has on accuracy; I'll build using a 26-29 oz. barrel for that reason alone. But, since this was going to be a lighter build, I selected barrels that might have a chance to overcome accuracy loss due to heat with other factors, such as stainless construction, a Wylde chamber, tapered profiles, etc. For a barrel that weighed less than 23 oz., the Ultralight seemed to check all the boxes. I have yet to assess accuracy, so this discussion is not about that.
The Ultralight comes with a tunable gas block. In one of their videos, Odin Works states that it is a "set it and forget it" setup, and not a true "adjustable" gas block. Odin Works states that the interior of the tunable block would become gummed up and difficult to adjust over time. So, find your sweet spot, jam the adjustment screw with the supplied set screw, and leave it alone. Once the screw that closes the gas flow from the gas port is in a position to shut off the return gas flow, it takes about 3.5 turns to completely close the gas block to any meaningful flow from the gas port to the gas tube.
I got tired of spending mucho bucks on all these builds, and decided to try out a nitrided Brownells brand BCG and bolt. Recoil system is a Vltor A5. You can kick me for those choices later. After putting together the basic build, I checked headspace. The chamber was very tight, and, although I don't have a lot of experience with Wylde chambers, I thought it might be a bit too tight. The 5.56 No Go gauge did not close, but neither did the 5.56 Go gauge. A US Army field gauge did not close and appeared to be properly aligned with the bolt not in battery. Also, a variety of snap caps all did close the bolt properly. I checked this with several other BCGs with identical results. After some thought, I decided that I could shoot the thing if I was able to ensure that a cartridge went into the chamber and the system was in battery.
So I found myself at the range, with a rifle with no handguard so I could get easy access to the adjustment screw, and went to work. I had decided that the process did not require minute adjustments, so there would be a total of eight possible settings, with a half turn between each. 0 would be all the way open, and 7 would be all the way closed. Using basic Federal Green Tip (XM855), I got all the way to 7 before the rifle decided not to cycle the following round. Well now, that is a pretty gassed rifle. After playing around with it, I decided position 6 was not that reliable as far as cycling was concerned: the cases exiting the ejection port didn't exactly fly, they reminded me of a sick old man falling on the concrete apron. So I decided that position 5 might be acceptable for that load.
I switched to Federal AE223, which has a bit less "oomph". It stared to not cycle at position 5, and absolutely would not cycle at position 6. I backed the opening up to position 4 and called it a day.
Along the way, for each "click" when I pulled the trigger, I had to check to see if the rifle had cycled properly, pulling the mag and then retracting the charging handle. In almost every case, the lack of necessary gas prevented the system from chambering a new round. In one case, and this is a puzzle, the rifle did chamber a round but did not cock the hammer. Sometimes, just to check, I would pull the charging handle prior to pulling the trigger. By the end of the test, it became very difficult to pull back on the charging handle if there was a round in the chamber. I was using an older BCM Gunfighter Mod 5 (small) handle and my usual pinch-pull left hand technique did not work.
I lost count along the way, but I believe that I used about 30 rounds or so on this process.
CONCLUSIONS
Like I said, I have no complaints about the barrel, but I do need to work out a few things.
1. Tight Chamber: I don't have a lot of experience with .223 Wylde chambers, and I do not know if a 5.56 Go gauge should close with a Wylde chamber. (I probably should have figured this out before doing this, but I have worked with new, tight chambers in 5.56 before.) However, I could not see a problem as long as the bolt was closed and in battery. Considering that all the parts in the upper (except the charging handle) were brand spanking new, it is possible that tight tolerances, burrs, and/or powder debris might have contributed to the difficulty in retracting the charging handle. It is also possible that the tight chamber may have made it more difficult to extract the case and cycle the system. If so, then the system may be more overgassed than I thought.
2. Do you really want a tunable gas block?: One of the reasons for my buying this barrel was the opportunity to fool around with the tunable gas block. Normally, I would go with a known manufacturer who has done their homework on gas ports and gas blocks. I don't mind an overgassed rifle if it is reliable. I ain't picky if it always goes bang. But now I feel that this barrel is married to that gas block. Without an adjustable gas system, there may be excessive gas going into the return system.
When I get a bit more experience with this barrel, I'll add on to this thread.
Thank you for that detailed write-up. I'm looking forward to your full conclusions for your 90% carbine concept.
You should not shoot the rifle if it has less than minimum headspace, period. Try a different bolt or have the chamber reamed.
Brownells has an excellent return policy and not passing headspace is a fair reason to exchange the BCG. If the new bolt does not close on a Go guage, have the barrel reamed for minumum headspace with the bolt.
If it won't close on a Go guage, then its no use to try either a No-Go or Field guage, by the way.
Andy
You should not shoot the rifle if it has less than minimum headspace, period. Try a different bolt or have the chamber reamed.
Brownells has an excellent return policy and not passing headspace is a fair reason to exchange the BCG. If the new bolt does not close on a Go guage, have the barrel reamed for minumum headspace with the bolt.
If it won't close on a Go guage, then its no use to try either a No-Go or Field guage, by the way.
Andy
Andy:
Your advice is excellent.
Anyone reading this should do what Andy says and not what I did. Seriously. The gauges exist for a reason and disregarding a gauge result should never be done lightly. Perhaps I should have said this in the post above, but I was primarily interested in establishing facts, not better ways of conduct or safety.
I will not bore the membership with my rationale for shooting a barrel that did not pass the "Go gauge" test. I am not imbecilic, masochistic, or suicidal, but I will confess to a bit of what pilots call "getthereitis". I certainly don't plan on shooting this thing in the future unless I can establish that it is safe to do so.
As for using a field gauge and no go gauge following the failure of the go gauge test: it may be redundant to do so, but I always do. This way I can say, without any hesitation or qualification, that I ran all three gauges on every barrel I install. I am not a pro, but a pretty committed hobbyist.
I fully understand the idea of a "no go" gauge and the need to use one in order to avoid excessive head space, but any reason one cannot use a factory 556 round in place of a "go" gauge? Firing pin out of bolt of course, as well as ejector.
Mark
Andy:
Your advice is excellent.
Anyone reading this should do what Andy says and not what I did. Seriously. The gauges exist for a reason and disregarding a gauge result should never be done lightly. Perhaps I should have said this in the post above, but I was primarily interested in establishing facts, not better ways of conduct or safety.
I will not bore the membership with my rationale for shooting a barrel that did not pass the "Go gauge" test. I am not imbecilic, masochistic, or suicidal, but I will confess to a bit of what pilots call "getthereitis". I certainly don't plan on shooting this thing in the future unless I can establish that it is safe to do so.
As for using a field gauge and no go gauge following the failure of the go gauge test: it may be redundant to do so, but I always do. This way I can say, without any hesitation or qualification, that I ran all three gauges on every barrel I install. I am not a pro, but a pretty committed hobbyist.
I really hope I didn't sound preachy. You are an intelligent, mature adult and I totally understand/respect taking an action after assessing whether the risk is acceptable to you.
Andy
I really hope I didn't sound preachy. You are an intelligent, mature adult and I totally understand/respect taking an action after assessing whether the risk is acceptable to you.
Andy
Andy:
What you wrote needed to be added to the conversation. My posts are way too long as a rule and I was focused on creating a factual record. I certainly don't want anyone reading this and concluding that what I did was normal for a competent upper build.
You have my thanks.
I fully understand the idea of a "no go" gauge and the need to use one in order to avoid excessive head space, but any reason one cannot use a factory 556 round in place of a "go" gauge? Firing pin out of bolt of course, as well as ejector.
Mark
Hmm. I've seen references to this being done (without pulling the firing pin) in a sort of WECSOG way. Obviously, this does not apply to you.
Something in me screams "this is not a good idea", but I really can't say why. I, and many others, don't use any live ammo at the workbench, so that is a possible policy problem for a lot of people. If you did it at the range with a nice safe direction then it couldn't be any worse than what I did, could it? Also, is it necessary to pull the ejector as the cartridge has a rim for the extractor to grab?
Anyone else?
UPDATE:
I telephoned Odin Works today (1/20) and left a message on their VM. About two hours later I received a call from a very nice guy who asked me to tell him about the problem. I described the go gauge situation, and my subsequent range experience. He stated that headspace on all their barrels should have been checked; they would be glad to take a look at the barrel and took me through the RMA request process. I could send the barrel, or the barreled action, and they would check headspace. If I wanted, I could include the bolt/BCG I intended to use and they would check the barrel using that. If they could not get the the headspace to work correctly, then they would send a new barrel after checking headspace with my bolt/BCG.
As soon as I get the RMA form completed, I should get a UPS tag and send it off.
This was an altogether better experience than I have had recently with other barrel manufacturers. We spent almost 15 minutes discussing the problem, possible solutions, and the gas system, including whether alternate gas blocks would overgas the gas return.
Hmm. I've seen references to this being done (without pulling the firing pin) in a sort of WECSOG way. Obviously, this does not apply to you.
Something in me screams "this is not a good idea", but I really can't say why. I, and many others, don't use any live ammo at the workbench, so that is a possible policy problem for a lot of people. If you did it at the range with a nice safe direction then it couldn't be any worse than what I did, could it? Also, is it necessary to pull the ejector as the cartridge has a rim for the extractor to grab?
Anyone else?
The problem is that ammunition is generally sized smaller than the min spec for the chamber size and that it is nowhere nearly as precise as a headspace gauge. Yes, I completely dodged the concern about putting a live round in the chamber.
Andy
UPDATE:
I telephoned Odin Works today (1/20) and left a message on their VM. About two hours later I received a call from a very nice guy who asked me to tell him about the problem. I described the go gauge situation, and my subsequent range experience. He stated that headspace on all their barrels should have been checked; they would be glad to take a look at the barrel and took me through the RMA request process. I could send the barrel, or the barreled action, and they would check headspace. If I wanted, I could include the bolt/BCG I intended to use and they would check the barrel using that. If they could not get the the headspace to work correctly, then they would send a new barrel after checking headspace with my bolt/BCG.
As soon as I get the RMA form completed, I should get a UPS tag and send it off.
This was an altogether better experience than I have had recently with other barrel manufacturers. We spent almost 15 minutes discussing the problem, possible solutions, and the gas system, including whether alternate gas blocks would overgas the gas return.
Ever thought of buying a tool (like the hornady tool) so you can actually measure headspace yourself on this build and any other rifles you may want to measure?
The Hornady tool is not expensive and it is not hard to do... A shit ton easier than sending it off for someone else to measure...
Ever thought of buying a tool (like the hornady tool) so you can actually measure headspace yourself on this build and any other rifles you may want to measure?
The Hornady tool is not expensive and it is not hard to do... A shit ton easier than sending it off for someone else to measure...
Which Hornady tool are you referring to?
Returning the barrel to Odin is a great path forward.
I am looking forward to a second range report. I am guessing that functionality will be corrected after Odin returns the barrel and bolt.
Andy
DG23: I am only familiar (just barely) with the Hornady headspace tools that check case sizes. Can you be more specific?
Andy: I did that write up because (1) there seemed to be a dearth of information on Odin Works ("OW") barrels and their tunable gas blocks, and (2) the headspace gauge problem seemed important enough to publish (i.e., if someone came along and told me I was a complete idiot, I would pay attention). This also offered an opportunity to document Odin Works response to the problem. Thus far I have been impressed by their response to my plea. I only wish that their QC department had caught this first.
My plan after getting a barrel back will be to redo this test, and, to try the Odin Works barrel with a "standard" gas block to see how that works. I usually use BCM blocks. According to the OW rep, their gas ports are not out of proportion with industry standards. I had to cut the call short and unfortunately did not have an opportunity to ask the dimensions of the port.
After that, it goes into the line for optic selection, accuracy tests, and then the upper gets general assessment for handling, weight with accessories, etc., as part of the 90% rifle project. I have two more uppers in parts that I could work on, and perhaps a third, so I am oversupplied with assembly tasks.
By the way, the whole "90%" project is built around this notion: what would you give up, change, or substitute, on conventional "M4-gery" type carbines to achieve good performance with a lighter package? This is not a "project featherweight" exercise. I began to notice the carbines with LPVOs (pegged to the highest magnification) and red dots, and Steiner dBals or MAWLs, and lights, and pressure switches ... that weighed between 9 and 10 lbs. I thought, there has to be a better way, especially for the civilian looking for a useful carbine with multiple capabilities without a lot of marginal accessories. At first I was going to try to incorporate NV stuff, but discovered that including IR illuminators and the like became a bit like 3-dimensional chess because of all the non-rifle mounting points available (e.g., the helmet or skullcrusher, the NVGs themselves, handheld). That will have to wait for another day, if I live that long.
I think my biggest problem will be to make the case that you don't "need" a 8x or 10x scope to have a carbine that is useful at carbine ranges. I want to create a setup that will have most of the useful toys and versatility that weighs 7-7.5 lbs., and doesn't break the bank.
DG23: I am only familiar (just barely) with the Hornady headspace tools that check case sizes. Can you be more specific?
Andy: I did that write up because (1) there seemed to be a dearth of information on Odin Works ("OW") barrels and their tunable gas blocks, and (2) the headspace gauge problem seemed important enough to publish (i.e., if someone came along and told me I was a complete idiot, I would pay attention). This also offered an opportunity to document Odin Works response to the problem. Thus far I have been impressed by their response to my plea. I only wish that their QC department had caught this first.
My plan after getting a barrel back will be to redo this test, and, to try the Odin Works barrel with a "standard" gas block to see how that works. I usually use BCM blocks. According to the OW rep, their gas ports are not out of proportion with industry standards. I had to cut the call short and unfortunately did not have an opportunity to ask the dimensions of the port.
After that, it goes into the line for optic selection, accuracy tests, and then the upper gets general assessment for handling, weight with accessories, etc., as part of the 90% rifle project. I have two more uppers in parts that I could work on, and perhaps a third, so I am oversupplied with assembly tasks.
By the way, the whole "90%" project is built around this notion: what would you give up, change, or substitute, on conventional "M4-gery" type carbines to achieve good performance with a lighter package? This is not a "project featherweight" exercise. I began to notice the carbines with LPVOs (pegged to the highest magnification) and red dots, and Steiner dBals or MAWLs, and lights, and pressure switches ... that weighed between 9 and 10 lbs. I thought, there has to be a better way, especially for the civilian looking for a useful carbine with multiple capabilities without a lot of marginal accessories. At first I was going to try to incorporate NV stuff, but discovered that including IR illuminators and the like became a bit like 3-dimensional chess because of all the non-rifle mounting points available (e.g., the helmet or skullcrusher, the NVGs themselves, handheld). That will have to wait for another day, if I live that long.
I think my biggest problem will be to make the case that you don't "need" a 8x or 10x scope to have a carbine that is useful at carbine ranges. I want to create a setup that will have most of the useful toys and versatility that weighs 7-7.5 lbs., and doesn't break the bank.
I am very much interested to see your final setup. I have a fairly simply 16" carbine with a BRT light optimum (tapered) barrel and a Trijicon 1-4 Accupoint optic and it is 7lbs 12 oz. That is sans light and sling though - it would be over 9 lbs with them and a 30 rd magazine.
I was and am tempted by the ACOGs because they seem the best answer to a lightweight magnified optic and I feel a general purpose carbine needs some magnification. About 8 ounces lighter than my accupoint+mount but not cheap.
Andy
I am very much interested to see your final setup. I have a fairly simply 16" carbine with a BRT light optimum (tapered) barrel and a Trijicon 1-4 Accupoint optic and it is 7lbs 12 oz. That is sans light and sling though - it would be over 9 lbs with them and a 30 rd magazine.
I was and am tempted by the ACOGs because they seem the best answer to a lightweight magnified optic and I feel a general purpose carbine needs some magnification. About 8 ounces lighter than my accupoint+mount but not cheap.
Andy
Andy:
I really liked my Accupoint TR24 (with the triangle reticle), but swapped it for an ACOG.
I think you are on to the same conclusion I have reached: for weight reduction, durability, and general ease of use, the prismatic scopes (like the ACOG) are much better than virtually all LPVOs. You can put an ACOG TA31 (4x) AND a RMR on an offset mount on a carbine and still weigh less than most LPVOs with mounts by at least 8 oz. Transitions from one sight to another are much faster than changing magnification on a LPVO, and you don't have to take a hand off the firearm to do it. The boss mounts on the ACOGs (for mounting a red dot on top of the ACOG) are not a particularly good idea. (Been there, done that, have all those mounts in a box.)
People can quibble about this and call this generalization into question, but, as a general statement, it is true. Until someone writes a treatise on the subject, and it might be me, the way I'm going, the above is a good benchmark.
I fully understand the idea of a "no go" gauge and the need to use one in order to avoid excessive head space, but any reason one cannot use a factory 556 round in place of a "go" gauge? Firing pin out of bolt of course, as well as ejector.
Mark
No need to remove the firing pin to prevent it from being able to reach a live primer in an assembled and installed carrier.
https://i.imgur.com/TWantAz.jpg
I DO like reading about dummies leaving that thing out for 'safety' and then having their stuff get 'stuck'. Those threads are priceless! :)
(.028 to .036)
DG23:
Sorry, the weekend overtook me and I lost track of this. What am I looking at in this picture? So, that's a washer and a piece of black rubber-like material?
DG23:
Sorry, the weekend overtook me and I lost track of this. What am I looking at in this picture? So, that's a washer and a piece of black rubber-like material?
That is the tail of the bolt.
Apologize for not providing more pictures so it was more clear. Did not notice until you mentioned it...
UPDATE:
I sent the Odin Works barrel back to the factory (1/24) for inspection, etc. We'll see what happens.
In the meantime, I ordered a Ballistic Advantage Hanson barrel, light profile, nitrided, chrome-moly, 1/7 twist (Performance series). I thought about getting BA's SS version, 1/8 twist (Premium series), but it occurred to me that I have three lightweight SS barrels in this test, and another fluted barrel, while I have only two that are made from more traditional, harder materials.
UPDATE:
Odin Works sent me an email stating that they had honed the chamber 'a bit', checked for headspace with my bolt (LMT), and checked for feeding, firing and extraction. It is on its way back to me.
Prior to sending it to them, I asked if they wanted it clean or "as is". They asked for it to be clean because it would ease the process of determining any problems. I don't blame them; I can imagine the state of barrels that get returned.
Altogether, their customer service has been first rate. Transit via UPS to and from their facility takes about a week, on their dime. But, to state the obvious, I would rather not have involved their CS department at all.
One More Time
02-12-23, 08:41
That's cool they are taking care of it.
Are you using the 1.4646" 5.56 go gauge?
On my WC .223W it will not close on a 1.4646" but does close on a 1.4636" (several bolts used)
The Faxon barrel I had in .223W was the same way.
The only 5.56 NATO marked barrels I have that close on a Colt spec go gauge are FN.
That's cool they are taking care of it.
Are you using the 1.4646" 5.56 go gauge?
On my WC .223W it will not close on a 1.4646" but does close on a 1.4636" (several bolts used)
The Faxon barrel I had in .223W was the same way.
The only 5.56 NATO marked barrels I have that close on a Colt spec go gauge are FN.
To answer your question: I used a Clymer set for "5.56 NATO". Go=1.4636" Nogo=1.4696"
In what was a real PIA, I tried like hell to find a combo that would work. I used bolts by Brownells, LMT, BCM, and Colt. The damn thing just wouldn't close. But, I was fairly certain that the problem was "borderline" and, as long as I checked for proper feeding, ejection, and to ensure the system was in battery, I could safely test the gas system. Initially, function was OK. As I outlined above, the tight chamber appeared to get more constraining as I used it, with the accumulation of "gun gunk" (i.e., burned and unburned powder, metal shavings, lube) and heat expansion in the parts affected. In other words, it started to get real hard to pull a live cartridge out of the chamber after about 20 rounds. It was past time to call the manufacturer.
Another quick update: the barrel and BCG arrived back from Odin Works on 2/15. It is the same barrel I sent, but I haven't had a chance to check it out. The BCG and bolt came back in a nice clamshell wrapper. Due to circumstances entirely within my control, I may not be able to get this assembled for another month. This barrel and its upper are now at the end of the project list, behind two other SS barrels and a nitride Ballistic Advantage.
With luck, and the cooperation of the volcano gods, I'll be back on this by mid-March.
A 5.56 chamber gauge is NOT the correct gauge for checking 223 Wylde chambers.
To adjust a gas block, place a single round in a magazine and perform a lock back check. Close the gas until the round ids ejected but the BCG does not lock back. Then, open the gas until the round is ejected and the BCG locks back.
Replace the extractor spring with a Colt extractor spring before performing the lock back check. A weak extractor spring will exhibit weak ejection. Yes, the extractor spring impacts ejection.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.