Barrell Burners ?

Tackleberrywho

Vegeta wrote: »

How many rounds are you using a season???

5000 rounds would be about 80 years supply if shooting 60 rounds a season. I'll be long dead in 80 years.

Well I reckon between 300-350, As I bought 200 in may and they are gone, and I had the remains of 100 before that also gone, and I just got anoth er150 for teh lead up to christmas, but i do practice with my .308 as often as I can.

I put 40 .308 rounds down range last Thursday.

I do take your point, it will see you out.

tac foley

I have two rifles that qualify as 'barrel burners', according to the premises posted here.

1. Is a Winchester Model 70 Sporter made in 1952 in .220 Swift - the original so-called 'barrel burner'. Certainly, the term was well-deserved at the time that it was introduced in 1935, as the metallurgy was not up to a 4200fps 55gr bullet. It took WW2 and massive advances made in metallurgy to make high-chrome steel for barrels that would last longer than a few hundred rounds. My old gun has a Douglas barrel put on it in 1972 and has prolly had five or six thousand rounds down it now. In deference to the fragile reputation that still hangs on to this calibre I ensure that my loads are kept to around 3800 or so - plenty fast enough for my needs. I shoot the gun a lot - it weighs only just eight pounds with its sling and basic x10 Weaver scope. It's a sure-fire chuck slayer if I do my bit - right out to as far as I can reasonably reach with the plain reticle scope - around 450 yards on a clear morning.

2. Is a Browning [actually Miroku-built] High Wall in .22-250. It has a 28" full octagon barrel, is twelve years old and is a screamer. I only shoot factory stuff in it and as such I can count how many rounds it has had - precisely 2240. No wear that can be detected either. That is a sure and certain 550 yard dog-buster, proven many times.

I'm told by a pal who shoots a 6.5-284 that his barrels are shot out at around 1200 rounds - certainly, he seems to be constantly zeroing a new barrel in whenever I see him. So for me, anything that is shot out at less than 2000 rounds could be considered to be a barrel burner. This is why the new calibres coming along, like the 6.5x47 and so on, with their instant rep as long-lastingly accurate, are so cost-effective, after the initial sticker-shock has been overcome.

tac

tac foley

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Should have mentioned that alright tc, to say nothing of composition (Chromoly is harder working and harder wearing than stainless). The concept of "barrel burners" these days in a sporting rifle context is pretty meaningless. Even a high intensity centrefire is going to be good for 3k rounds at least in a sporting sense, where it's not going to involve string fire, provided it's properly cleaned and maintained. Shooting targets is a different story with high intensity rounds and stainless barrels. Also, most people shooting medium and big game will never shoot a barrel out to the extent that it stops them harvesting animals. For most people, if a rifle shoots 3" groups, they'll never fail to kill an animal inside 200 yards as a result of the rifle. A gun that shoots 1" groups at 100 is good for accurate shooting out to far further than most people should be shooting.

A VERY sensible post, IMO, that hits the nail right on the head.

tac

stick shooter

tac foley wrote: »

I have two rifles that qualify as 'barrel burners', according to the premises posted here.

1. Is a Winchester Model 70 Sporter made in 1952 in .220 Swift - the original so-called 'barrel burner'. Certainly, the term was well-deserved at the time that it was introduced in 1935, as the metallurgy was not up to a 4200fps 55gr bullet. It took WW2 and massive advances made in metallurgy to make high-chrome steel for barrels that would last longer than a few hundred rounds. My old gun has a Douglas barrel put on it in 1972 and has prolly had five or six thousand rounds down it now. In deference to the fragile reputation that still hangs on to this calibre I ensure that my loads are kept to around 3800 or so - plenty fast enough for my needs. I shoot the gun a lot - it weighs only just eight pounds with its sling and basic x10 Weaver scope. It's a sure-fire chuck slayer if I do my bit - right out to as far as I can reasonably reach with the plain reticle scope - around 450 yards on a clear morning.

2. Is a Browning [actually Miroku-built] High Wall in .22-250. It has a 28" full octagon barrel, is twelve years old and is a screamer. I only shoot factory stuff in it and as such I can count how many rounds it has had - precisely 2240. No wear that can be detected either. That is a sure and certain 550 yard dog-buster, proven many times.

I'm told by a pal who shoots a 6.5-284 that his barrels are shot out at around 1200 rounds - certainly, he seems to be constantly zeroing a new barrel in whenever I see him. So for me, anything that is shot out at less than 2000 rounds could be considered to be a barrel burner. This is why the new calibres coming along, like the 6.5x47 and so on, with their instant rep as long-lastingly accurate, are so cost-effective, after the initial sticker-shock has been overcome.

tac

Even though the 6.5x47 has x2+ the barrel life of the 6.5x284 the 6.5x248 has a lot more performance at 800-1000 yards .
Hard for most target shooters to put a price on performance .
I shoot my 270 for deer and foxes so i wont worrying

tac foley

stick shooter wrote: »

Even though the 6.5x47 has x2+ the barrel life of the 6.5x284 the 6.5x248 has a lot more performance at 800-1000 yards .
Hard for most target shooters to put a price on performance .
I shoot my 270 for deer and foxes so i wont worrying

I'm not talking about performance, although I would disagree with your comment - many TR shooters here in UK are buying into the 6.5x47 - eight in our club alone so far this year - but the short barrel-life of the 6.5-284 rightly denotes it as a barrel burner.

Figures in the USA suggest that the 6.5x47 has a VERY long life, and although nobody has yet admitted to shooting more than a few thousand rounds down such a barrel the various makers are quite confident about achieving such accurate longevity.

tac

tomcat220t

tac foley wrote: »

I'm not talking about performance, although I would disagree with your comment - many TR shooters here in UK are buying into the 6.5x47 - eight in our club alone so far this year - but the short barrel-life of the 6.5-284 rightly denotes it as a barrel burner.

Figures in the USA suggest that the 6.5x47 has a VERY long life, and although nobody has yet admitted to shooting more than a few thousand rounds down such a barrel the various makers are quite confident about achieving such accurate longevity.

tac

As side from the 6.5x47 extra barrel life ,what other way does it outperform the 6.5x284

tac foley

tomcat220t wrote: »

As side from the 6.5x47 extra barrel life ,what other way does it outperform the 6.5x284

I suspect that you are asking me questions for which you already have answers, but I'll humour you anyhow.

1. There is, at the time of writing, no factory 6.5-284 ammunition - although perhaps you know something to the contrary.

EDIT - HPS make it.

2. 6.5x47 ammunition can be readily bought over the counter in many places.

3. The 'performance' need not be instantly apparent, but manifests in many other ways -

a. Shorter, lighter guns from the shorter lighter optimal length barrel - 28" is plenty long enough, and most I see here in UK, USA and Canada are 24-26".

b. For those who reload there is a substantial saving on the amount of propellant used - loads are typically between 10 and 20% less than those of a .308Win, which it happily totally eclipses - at least out to a 1000 yards. Case life is also extended becuase of the use of cooler-burning propellants such as RL15 - which brings us back to barrel life.

c. There is a multiplicity of actions out there ready to chamber for the 6.5x47 - anything that would take the .308Win, including all those that use a magazine, will happily fit the 6.5x47, too - it fits into EVERY .308win magazine ever made without alteration.

For some folks, the annual barrel change of a 6.5-284 is pretty much the price you pay for shooting an elite cartridge in an elite gun in a fairly exclusive sport. Over here we tend to be somewhat poorer than you are, and shooting a 6.5x47 means that we can shoot it in every kind of competition you can imagine - not just the open TR, but also the immensely popular practical/tactical [in which the Irish Army do so well], BR - or even hunt with it, as my cousin in Idaho does. I have no idea how much it costs in the RoI to change a top-grade barrel, and then go through the hoops [and expense] of shooting it in and finding a sweet load for it - every year - but it can't be cheap. Knowing that your new rifle - even shooting a 1000 rounds a year - will probably last you at least five years before you even need to think about a new barrel certainly has an appeal.

Multiple champion shooter Vince Bottomley - one of the great proponents of the 6.5x47 - certainly thinks so, and I listen to him.

tac

PS - when my .308Win Krico 650SS finally gives up the ghost, accuracy-wise, it will be rebarrelled as a 6.5x47, enabling me to keep using my VERY expensive Krico 5-round magazines. I have eight of them, at around eu150 each.

tomcat220t

So it simply does not OUTPERFORM the 6.5x284 !What barrel life does the 6.5x47 have at match paces in F-class ?5000+ rounds sounds very optimistic,imo!The 6.5x284 is available in factory form .Your 6.5x47 is not going to be competitive at 1000 yards against the faster 6.5x284 ,imo.Even the 6xc outperforms it at 1000 yards ! Does Vince use for F-class open~(800-900-1000) ?
There is a price to pay for performance but the 6.5x47 would not be a good example of compromise between the 6.5x47 and 6.5x284 .

tac foley

tomcat220t wrote: »

So it simply does not OUTPERFORM the 6.5x284 !What barrel life does the 6.5x47 have at match paces in F-class ?5000+ rounds sounds very optimistic,imo!The 6.5x284 is available in factory form .Your 6.5x47 is not going to be competitive at 1000 yards against the faster 6.5x284 ,imo.Even the 6xc outperforms it at 1000 yards ! Does Vince use for F-class open~(800-900-1000) ?
There is a price to pay for performance but the 6.5x47 would not be a good example of compromise between the 6.5x47 and 6.5x284 .

Sir - you are mostly correct. However, I can only find 6.5-284 ballistic tip bullets. Can you advise me on the availability of over-the-counter target ammunition for this calibre?

tac

tomcat220t

tac foley wrote: »

Sir - you are mostly correct. However, I can only find 6.5-284 ballistic tip bullets. Can you advise me on the availability of over-the-counter target ammunition for this calibre?

tac

HPS uk

tac foley

Thank you for that information.

Sadly, I don't know anybody here rich enough to afford that ammunition. We are mostly poor pensioners, or at least unemployed, many of us disabled in one way or another and reliant for our enjoyment by reading fora such as this one where there is such a wealth of lively discourse and exchange of information.

Best

tac

tomcat220t

tac foley wrote: »

Thank you for that information.

Sadly, I don't know anybody here rich enough to afford that ammunition. We are mostly poor pensioners, or at least unemployed, many of us disabled in one way or another and reliant for our enjoyment by reading fora such as this one where there is such a wealth of lively discourse and exchange of information.

Best

tac

How much is the lapua 6.5x47 a box of 20 Bearing in mind that the hps is probably better quality match ammo !
This thread was about barrel burners .....whats the price or availability of such ammo got to do with it .
If one cant afford HPS but could afford 6.5x47 Lapua match ammo
Your reply dont make sence to me ,sorry !

Glensman

So the 6.5-284 is superior in every way except barrel longevity?

It wasn't me!

Throw the same bullet faster, and providing it's still acceptable in terms of recoil, it will shoot better in wind, up to the point where it's destabilised by sheer velocity, or blows up from friction, which is quite unlikely with a quality bullet. 6.5-284 is still a nice light cartridge in recoil terms, so it's very easy to shoot. Driving the same bullet faster, it'll be easier to shoot well with than the 6.5x47, particularly in higher winds.

tac foley

tomcat220t wrote: »

How much is the lapua 6.5x47 a box of 20 Bearing in mind that the hps is probably better quality match ammo !
This thread was about barrel burners .....whats the price or availability of such ammo got to do with it .
If one cant afford HPS but could afford 6.5x47 Lapua match ammo
Your reply dont make sence to me ,sorry !

Ah, apologies for thread drift, that began back at post #31 with prices of ammunition.

Seeing as how we are so poor over here, most of us don't actually buy ammunition - especially at those prices. We, being mean and miserly, make it instead, as, I hope, all of you guys over there will soon be able to do.

As for store-bought ammunition, especially European-made stuff, you usually get it cheaper than we do, especially when you figure out that over here we get roughly one-to-one £ to Euro. The official rate of exchange is about eu1.20 the £, BTW.

For the time being.

All of that could change, however.

tac

tac foley

Glensman wrote: »

So the 6.5-284 is superior in every way except barrel longevity?

You are right - if ALL you do is 1000 yard TR, where it is still very popular, but not quite the King of the Hill that it used to be.

You can buy a LOT of factory 6.5x47 ammunition for the price of a new barrel every year. You can buy an even more prodigious amount of shooting ammunition in component form, too.

Remember that many of us outside the Republic of Ireland enjoy many other forms of long-range precision shooting than static TR, as I mentioned before.

Longer barrel life, gentler recoil, ease of reloading with long-life cases and with less powder, lighter but still as accurate guns, shorter and lighter guns, too, all add up to a quality of their own.

tac

tomcat220t

Glensman wrote: »

So the 6.5-284 is superior in every way except barrel longevity?

The 6.5x47 was designed by Lapua as a 300 meter caliber where as the 6.5x284 is used more for 800-1000 yards .Big gap in performance !So the 6.5x47 is not a good choice over the 6.5x284 ,imo.
A much better example is straight .284 running the 180gr bergers, that will shoot well inside the 6.5x284 at 1000+ yards and still give a real word barrel life of app 3000+ rounds as apposed the 1000-1200 rounds of the 6.5x284.

FISMA

vixdname wrote: »

Lads, just a quick one.....I've heard and seen on Boards numerous times that the .220 swift for example is known as a barrel burner...

Vix,
I think this term was coined years ago. Long before the standards of today's metallurgy. Back in those days, I literally think the barrel could be gone in 300 or 400 shots. Definitely, under 1000.

I doubt that is going to happen today with a .220Swift. Especially, if you take care of your kit.

Also, life is too short to worry about burning out barrels. Shoot the gun you want, drink the pint you want, and marry the gal you want.

I understand your concern, but don't overthink it. If you shoot the barrel out, congratulate yourself and get another.

Also, if reloading ever comes your way, maybe you could run less powder, if your range allows it.

Cass

FISMA wrote: »

I understand your concern, but don't overthink it. If you shoot the barrel out, congratulate yourself and get another.
.

Without subscribing to an overly simplistic approach i would agree with this.

We have at our disposal a number of gun smiths, and th ability to have new barrels installed when old ones burn out or when we want - basically. A service we did not have back a few years ago. Plus too many people think new barrel/custom barrel and they think big money. Its not.