when viewed with a bore scope? Factory, specialty company or barrel maker. Please score your choice from 1 to 10, 10 being perfect with no machine marks or striations.

Question:
Please also state brand if you select "other".

Choices:
Dakota
Obermeyer
Douglas
Krieger
Lothar Walther
Bartlein
Brux
Broughton
Hart
Other

 

Does Dakota Arms still use Lothar Walther barrels?

Regardless, LW barrels are great, but they are not the smoothest of things. I have four and from the start they fouled pretty well until they were shot in.

Lilja and Krieger are the smoothest I have seen using a Hawkeye borescope. But with premium barrels it's pretty much a toss up as most of them are lapped.

Looking down my Brux, Shilen, Wilson and Krieger I can't tell the difference. I should have probably cleaned the guns first though.

I find all the lapped barrels similar MacLellan was one of my smoothest and PacNor was also well finished. I am surprised to see a poster list Douglas next to Hart since it is well known that Douglas does not lap their barrels, just can't see how they can be up there next to Hart, if that is the case why in the heck does everybody lap.
bb

Opus1,

I had asked about Dakota's choice in barrels back when I ordered my Model 10. No specific brand was mentioned.
Sure was fine quality inside, easily an 8.5 of 10.

Some guns smiths will tell you LW's are harder to cut chambers due to the steel they use, but as far as accuracy goes, I've never had a problem.

Initially mine would hold more copper than say a Lilja or Krieger but after 50 rounds or so, they calmed down.

If you use a borescope it's pretty frightening what the inside of a new barrel looks like - on factory non-lapped barrels that is.

Frightening is the word for sure. I have a commercial Brno 22F custom with it's original un-lapped barrel that has tool marks galore inside. Amazingly enough it actually shoots 1.75 inch groups. Wear is minimal otherwise.
I also own a GEW 98 custom with a Douglas barrel that was built in 1963 that may never have been cleaned. Lots of blue black came out after about a dozen fore and aft passes with a 0000 steel wool-wrapped brush with Hoppe's No. 9 and then 4-5 treatments with some Wipeout and a tight-fitted mop to finally get all the copper deposits out. I found 3-4 fine shavings stuck in the wool. The rifling had almost no wear. Groups went from 2.75 to well under an inch.

When I ran my scope through my PacNor barrel,I found it to be smooth and perfect,not one blemish.

I have a Hart, a Schneider, a Shilen, a Douglas, & a Lilja available of varying age & round count to look at with a recently acquired borescope. Getting past the wear & checking on some close to the chamber there isn't damned bit of difference in the visual quality of any of them. They all shoot well & clean easily.

The contrast is barrels that have been, and have to be, lapped, and those that aren't. Microscopically, lapped barrels will look rough; not necessarily a bad thing.
Let me explain; cut rifled barrels are routinely lapped. Why? Because cutting steel leaves it less than smooth enough, so they lead lap them to get all the tool marks running in the same direction, and so they don't foul too much. They are also lapped to bring the internal dimensions close to uniform.
The other custom barrel method is button rifled. Why do some makers lap and some, most notably Douglas, do not? It all has to do with the care and precision in the reaming of the hole. It takes longer time wise, and sharper reamers, to make a perfectly smooth and dimensionally precise, hole. So some makers, have to lap them to get their barrels smooth, and to a uniform internal size.
Douglas does not lap because they do not need to; I have personally been to their factory and I air gauged several barrels. All were less than .0001 from end to end, and they are dead smooth. Also, they use a solid gear driven rifling machine; pushed through the reamed hole, with a proprietary lube process. It has worked since about 1948; no need to use any other maker.
I know guys like to try new things, but I stick to a proven, old, maker. Plus they are the easiest to deal and communicate with, by far.

The vote is correct..Lothar Walthers have proven to me to be the best, and Obermyer is a awesome barrel, but hard to come by last I checked, I think he had a military contract at the time.

I just had a Krieger barrel put on my Pre-64 Model 70 in .264 win Mag. I finally wore out the original factory barrel, so decided to have him completely RE-build the rifle. My gunsmith said he’d go with whatever he could get amongst Krieger, Brux & Bartlein; telling me that all 3 are superb barrels. Looking down the bore of the Krieger, it looks like glass, totally smooth.

He also pillar bedded the Brown Precision stock I had on the rifle, replaced my 40 year old Leupold 3-9 with a new Leupold VX5 in 3-15 with CDS turret and fire dot reticle; and finished the whole thing off with a Timney trigger set at 2 3/4 pounds. I’m shooting a 127 grain Barnes LRX at 3,200 FPS and getting groups under 3/8ths of an inch (.332” best).

So, for a caliber not known for accuracy, that Krieger barrel isn’t too bad! Maiden voyage for the new rifle will be a Desert Sheep hunt in December.

Smoothest does not necessarily means best.

Had over a dozen BRNO 22 rim fire rifles, all brand new.

Checked them with a bore scope and graded them by how good they looked..

The best looking inside we’re not as accurate as the others.

Saeed,

I can believe those variations on the same model barrels and did touch on that with the scratchy barreled Brno I spoke about. However, I must still bounce back to my original statement some months ago for a minute. A single thing may not make a difference. But, stack up several things and your efforts will usually give a rifle that is "the best it can be" if done by skilled hands.

Did you mess with the triggers on those Brno's? Did they vary on feel and pull?

CB

quote:

Originally posted by Atkinson:
The vote is correct..Lothar Walthers have proven to me to be the best, and Obermyer is a awesome barrel, but hard to come by last I checked, I think he had a military contract at the time.

Ray,
Boots had a stroke a while back and as such the barrel making business is closed. He is doing better but his son did not want to take over, so the shop is closed. Only had one barrel from him but it was a good one.
John

I voted Other because my expierence has been with the Lilja barrel. Good Shooting.

Phurlys,
Well you ain't wrong, Lilja makes a fine barrel.

Barrels are like calibers if they work for the user then of course they are the best, but keep in mind that Hart might make 20 barrels before one suits a pro benchrester...Id love to buy his junk pile.

I have a large selection of match grade barrels from many makers.

For my own rifles, I tend to prefer Lilja.

No problem with any of the others, in fact, they all are of excellent quality.

Anyone look at Benchmark barrels? I don't own a borescope.

God Bless, Louis

I keep wondering why Douglas and lother walther NEVER show up on the equipment list in ANY of the precision shooting equipment lists.........

.

Might be that dealing with those bench resters is a pain in the ass, Hart has piles of barrels that didn't work for them, According to some of Saeeds friends that are avid bench resters they will try 20 to 30 barrels before they find one acceptable. There are a number of good barrels that are geared for hunters mostly..