I have a barrel blank that I think has either choke or taper bore. Bore diameter of muzzle is several thousandths smaller than breech.
1. I want to determine which type of reducing bore I have.

2. I also want to identify if taper bore, at least in several steps - say, every couple of inches? - what is the bore diameter change, or if choke bore, where choke begins.
***
How do I do this without owning tools, such as bore scopes and air gauges?

snug fitting lead balls

I believe if it is a rifle barrel and it has more than a couple tenths bore restriction I would make a tomato stake out of it. Competition rifles could have as much as .0001 taper or choke and no more.
I am not a shotgun person and can't speak about them.

OR the barrel was lapped, and the "swamped" muzzle has already been cut off (with the chamber reamer taking care of the breach "swamp")
I know that Lilja sells their barrels both ways, already cut, and with the muzzle end marked (notched) where it should be cut by the installer.

How exactly did you measure the breech and muzzle bore diameters?

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
I believe if it is a rifle barrel and it has more than a couple tenths bore restriction I would make a tomato stake out of it. Competition rifles could have as much as .0001 taper or choke and no more.
I am not a shotgun person and can't speak about them.

I'm thinking you would not have bought Harry Pope's barrels.
***
Bobster: I used Brown & Sharpe micrometer and telescoping gauge. The blanks have seven grooves, so I cannot easily identify groove depth. Since Joe Williams is a first class barrel maker, I am unconcerned with nuances of his job. What I want to know pertains to proper bullet diameter for "mallet-free" loading. What I hope for is choke boring - that is, bore reduction begins two-three inches from the muzzle. What that would mean is one rap with short starter, the bullet being loadable with a modest effort. To load my double rifle requires a glass-faced hammer, short starter, and steel loading rod. Loading takes several minutes per barrel, but the effort is worthwhile. Bullets do not move (back out) during recoil and regulated with 110-grains FFg, two shots touch at 50 yards and form a two-inch cluster at 85 yards. This result is from 775-grain bullets. So far I have not needed to reload in the field (2111 - two whitetails via right/left), but I carry implements with me anyway.

I got the information I needed from American Longrifles Forum. I thank all of you for your effort.

I don't know how much, if any, bore reduction is injurious to accuracy with jacketed bullets.

But, it seems to me one may remember a little barrel maker from New York and San Francisco who apparently saw no particular harm in it for most bullets...a dude named Harry Pope. Some of you may have heard of him.

I know many cast bullet shooters prefer both some "choke" in the bore and a gain twist for competition shooting. At least one of them, Bev Penny of British Columbia won the Cast Bullet Association's U.S. Grand National benchrest Championship in 1999 shooting a Ron Smith (Alberta) barrel with choke and gain twist.

I also have a Ron Smith choked and gain twist fluted stainless barrel which I use in .30-BR with both jacketed and cast bullets, and it is "lights out-deadly" accurate with both varieties.

I suspect the subject is like a lot of others in shooting. Generalities MAY be generally true (or may not) but even IF they ARE generally true, there are lots of individual exceptions to every general rule.

So we're talking of lead bullets? Pope made barrels in times past, not present day. Haven't heard of present day shooters using them or want to use them. Would I drive a Model T?
Of course not unless it was a nostalgia thing.

Lead-bullet barrels can benefit from significantly more constriction than jacketed-bullet barrels, AAMOF the ratio is almost 10:1; IOW the lead-bullet barrel will generally be quite accurate with up to ~0.002" (thousandths) choke while the jacketed-bullet barrel will be accurate with up to 0.0001"-0.0003" (ten-thousandths) choke.

For the purists on both sides, I hasten to add that the above opinion is what's known as a 'glittering generality' and is not true in all cases, only most.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
So we're talking of lead bullets? Pope made barrels in times past, not present day. Haven't heard of present day shooters using them or want to use them. Would I drive a Model T?
Of course not unless it was a nostalgia thing.

No, but we are not talking exclusively jacketed-bullet short range benchrest either. I thought we were talking rifle barrels in general, for hunting, plinking, some target shooting, whatever.

For the average hunter/shooter, I doubt if a bit of choke or gain twist makes one iota of difference when it comes to achieving useful accuracy from his barrel. Good (not match grade, but decent) bullets is probably the number one item in that respect.

I once bought a Mauser action at a gun show In Edmonton, a threaded-for-Mauser barrel in 9.5 x 57 at another show, and a Mauser stock from a shop. Put them together and it reliably shot MOA groups with 235 gr. Speer bullets. I never shot ANY cast bullets from that gun.


Funny thing is, there was enough taper in that barrel that a bullet would drop a quarter of the way through the barrel before the rifling caught and stopped it. But it shot as many sub-MOA 5-shot groups as it did larger than MOA ones. Go figure, eh?

And speaking of jacketed-bullet short range BR, that Ron Smith barrel on my 13.5 pound "Heavy
Sporter" Class BR rifle (AMT action) will shoot jacketed bullets well enough with its choked gain twist barrel to shoot 250-point possibles on the IBS score targets. That's good enough for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
And speaking of jacketed-bullet short range BR, that Ron Smith barrel on my 13.5 pound "Heavy
Sporter" Class BR AMT action rifle will shoot jacketed bullets well enough with its choked gain twist barrel to shoot 250-point possibles on the IBS score targets. That's good enough for me.

For many top shooters, Ron is perhaps THE BEST barrelmaker anywhere around. And now he makes CM barrels too!
Regards, Joe

Butch,

What about the Blackstar Accumax II barrels? I ask because I have one on a DCM setup and my understanding is they are first rate.

Black StAR

Thaine,
I thought they folded years ago. Back in the middle 90s they showed up for a BR match at the Houston American Shooting Center I believe it was called. They had their own factory shooter. They shot so bad they didn't show up the next day or forever. Gunsmiths were having to deal with at least .002 variance in bore size from barrel to barrel. A friend was the go to guy to chamber barrels for them. He said they were a POS. One of our better BR shooters and gunsmiths couldn't get $100 for a couple barrels that he owned.
The Blackstar barrels were Lothar Walther barrels with their LW50 SS.
Don't have enough time to expand on this.

Butch,

Thanks for the info. I guess I better keep my fingers crossed when I try it out. LOL. It was the LW connection and the fact that Compass Lake Engineering did the work that sold me on the upper.

Thaine,
I believe the LW barrels are ok, but it may have been Blackstar's micro polishing that caused the bore variance.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
Thaine,
I believe the LW barrels are ok, but it may have been Blackstar's micro polishing that caused the bore variance.

I watched the Blackstar results closely but no joy. My standard LW barrels OTOH have been great.
Regards, Joe

Guess I fell for the "snake oil" spiel! LOL

Maybe, maybe not, Thaine.

My immediate response is to ask some serious questions, looking for real answers. My questions are:

-Who was the Blackstar shooter at the match Butch saw? Was he a fully competent and competitive, experienced, known, winning, benchrest shooter? If not, how do we know whether the problem was the barrel and not the shooter?


-Even if the barrels aren't top ranked benchrest quality, are they not sufficiently well made for other users? Or are they just write-offs? A check of their web-site shows a claim that several national records were set with them by purchasers...presumably on competition fields other than benchrest ranges. Is that a flat-out lie?

-Has anyone other than me here at AR had any direct experience with them? If so, how did they do for them?

(I have two Blackstars, a 6.5 and a .25, and both are good barrels so far, though I haven't ever tried one on a target rifle.)

It is my understanding Blackstar made a fair number of barrels from 700-series steel. Thaine, Do you know which steel yours are made from? (700-series steel requires slightly different cutting procedures?)

It is also my understanding that Blackstars are internally tapered less than .001" over the full length of the bore. Are any actual users here folks who found that? If so, did you find that one slightly different diameter bullet worked better or worse than some others?

Benchrest is a fun sport to a point, and we all have learned a way or three (or more) which help accuracy by watching or competing with the benchresters.

BUT it is also a field of sport very much not inclined to great amunts of thorough experimentation in recent years. Lots of things are tried fleetingly, but if they don't "win" immediately, they seem to disappear forever rather than be further researched. Most competitors seem to be more interested in winning than experimenting is my own take on it. That is one of the major reasons why I don't shoot benchrest any more.

If you doubt that, ask yourself why a successor to the 6 PPC has never developed in the sport. Is that round truly the pot of gold at the ultimate end of the accuracy rainbow?

It will be interesting to see how your Blackstars actually perform in the field for you when you get them finished up and shooting.

AC,
I never thought I would say BS to your post, but I am this time. Blackstar made no barrels. The 700 that you speak of is LW's LW50 steel. It machines like 17-4. If a 6mm barrel comes in a .237 bore and the next in .2395, they have a problem. AC, lots of people have tried to find a more accurate cartridge than the 6ppc and are still looking. It may be out there, but it ain't shown up yet. If you think BR shooters have quit experimenting? Where have you been? Where do you think the March scopes came from? Where do you think the new Accurate T322 and the Hogdon 8208XBR powder came from? Why do you think Bryan Litz and Berger bullets are going full out on a new design of BR bullets? I guess the new balsa and carbon fiber stocks weren't an experiment. Have you checked out Kelbly's new BR trigger. It is quite different than past triggers, and by the way Jim Farley has a new design trigger also. Some of the barrel makers can now rifle a barrel with a gain twist with CNC control. I would add more to this, but I'm a one fingered typist. I need to be on the tractor mowing.
Oh, by the way, check the current BR group records and see how many have been set in the last 2-3 years. Must be a reason, maybe we have a bunch of new shooters that were genetically hatched.

quote:

Originally posted by butchlambert:
AC,
I never thought I would say BS to your post, but I am this time. Blackstar made no barrels. The 700 that you speak of is LW's LW50 steel. It machines like 17-4. If a 6mm barrel comes in a .237 bore and the next in .2395, they have a problem. AC, lots of people have tried to find a more accurate cartridge than the 6ppc and are still looking. It may be out there, but it ain't shown up yet. If you think BR shooters have quit experimenting? Where have you been? Where do you think the March scopes came from? Where do you think the new Accurate T322 and the Hogdon 8208XBR powder came from? Why do you think Bryan Litz and Berger bullets are going full out on a new design of BR bullets? I guess the new balsa and carbon fiber stocks weren't an experiment. Have you checked out Kelbly's new BR trigger. It is quite different than past triggers, and by the way Jim Farley has a new design trigger also. Some of the barrel makers can now rifle a barrel with a gain twist with CNC control. I would add more to this, but I'm a one fingered typist. I need to be on the tractor mowing.
Oh, by the way, check the current BR group records and see how many have been set in the last 2-3 years. Must be a reason, maybe we have a bunch of new shooters that were genetically hatched.

Butch, I don't know who made the barrels, but they were sold as Blackstar barrels. So, I was referring to the BRAND name of them, as sold. Presumably, whoever made them, Blackstar treated them with their "chemical honing" process, then sold them under their own label.

As they created the internal taper and the final dimensions and polish of the bore, who can say they didn't "manufacture" the finished product, regardless who made the raw form of the barrel?

I hope we are not now going to pick nits over that.

BTW, since we have you reading this thread, who WAS the shooter campaigning the Blackstar barrel at the match you referred to? And what WAS his competitive benchrest background/skill level?

I am not trying to defend Blackstar, but I would like to get some facts before I damn them.

As to the "new" developments in shooting science that benchresters are currently contributing to the shooting sports, we'll see how many of them pan out in the long run as advancements rather than just high priced sales pitches of re-discovered gadgets or gimmicks which one "must" have to "win"...pardon my sarcastic view, please.

Until then I hope you'll excuse me for approaching much of benchrest these days as something similar to watching Narcissus gaze into a pond.

and of course new records are set all the time. that's the nature of all competitive sports.

As to the powders you mention at least the 8208 is presumably from Australia, where it or lots similar to it, have been in use for at least 20 years. And so we finally have another version of 322. How many years ago was it that everyone was scrambling around trying to buy up the original 322?...and before that, the Ball C-1 ("Western" Ball), and on and on.

As to externally adjustable scopes., like the March, wasn't external adjustments the way target scopes all came at the first modern BR matches back in 1947?

AC,
This is the 4th time I've typed this as Have accidentally deleted my past post accidentally. Blackstar showed up at our match at American Shooting Sports Center. It was a local match in Houston. The factory guy was sent home with his tail between his legs after the first day. I don't know who he was, but 40-50 of the local guys whipped his A$$. Now if you were trying to impress wouldn't you have at least sent a shooter? He may have been very good and the barrels were just shift. They did give away several barrels in the olden days to the good shooters. They didn't shoot with the good guys either. Don't tell me the absence of their barrels is because we don't like how good they shoot.
The balsa-carbon fiber stocks are very popular and work. We want a light stiff stock. Balsa- carbon laminates with a carbon fiber skin does this. This allows the weight of a bigger barrel and larger scopes.
The powder situation came about because the lot to lot variation. One of the shooters put up $100,000[Lou Murdica] to duplicate one of the old powders that worked good and tighten up the lot to lot variance. I don't care if it is made in OZ. I don't want to burn up a barrel looking for a good load everytime I have a new lot.
The Super Shoot is the only shoot that a little prize money is available, so it ain't the big guy making money. Most you will see is the winner of National Matches will get a new barrel from the manufacturer if you are using theirs.
AC, you need to pick another battle as you ain't going to win this one.

Also the March scopes have little knobs that adjust the erector tube inside the scope body just like a Leupold with better results. Do a search on March scopes.

Nor are you going to win it, Butch.

I still see benchrest as often a prima-donna's sport, with little innovation other than to copy what the last winner they saw used (or said he used if it will get him a freebie from some barrel-maker, cleaning equipment seller, whatever).


An undue number of benchresters I have met seem to hold the opinion that they, and only they, know anything about rifle accuracy. I've actually had them tell me seriously at the Cactus shoot that hi-power shooting and Palma shooting are a laughing stock and don't mean shit in terms of real accuracy. Yeh, several of them sitting together did, and all got their real jollies out of saying so.

I was expressing an opinion about the sport as a whole here, not about you or a few others in it, but in the last two decades I have not seen a lot come out of benchrest that I think really helps most shooters. That doesn't mean nothing has, but little.

Somehow I doubt we are going to see a lot of shooters buying high dollar balsa wood stocks with a carbon fibre skin so they can carry more weight in their barrels in the field, so what does that innovation tell us other than something we have all known for many years....ie., that you can use heavier barrels if you go to extremes in other areas? And I think we all have known for quite a while that heavier barrels allow smaller groups, IF group shooting is really what most people value over handiness and the ability to shoot quickly what needs to be shot without toting a very heavy rifle with a little cartridge around. No great news there that I can discern.

I guess too I am just getting fed up with so much badmouthing of every product on the market (or which was on the market) which occurs here. And I've seen way too many shooters try to "buy" success rather than work with what they have, find out why it isn't performing the way they want it to, and correct it on their own.

I guess that's one of the reasons I tilted toward shooting cast bullet benchrest more than jacketed bullet benchrest. Those cast bullet guys spend a lot of time, thought, and effort analysing and experimenting with what may be affecting their rifle performance. If their barrel isn't perfectly to size, they modify the size of their bullets to fit, and so on.

Still, the more the sport progresses, the more they also have tended toward trying to "buy" success, if "winning" is a good way of judging sucess. Personally, I think an open mind and a willingness to try things out to learn how and why they do or don't work is a better definition of success. And that starts with not jumping on bandwagons to bad-mouth products just because they can.

If Blackstar barrels were not consistent in size, then that was a definite failing in their manufacture, one that could be dealt with, but still a good reason for chosing something else.

But it would be much more useful to all to state that problem up front in saying why they are not a personal choice, rather than just a blanket statement that they are a POS.

Anyhow, my Blackstar barrels, whoever made them, shoot fine chambered for .257 Roberts and a 6.5x60 wildcat of a 7x61 S&H Magnum, so I am quite satisfied with them.

AC,
I addressed your thoughts.
You are addressing nothing. You are old just like me, but I doubt that you have been around as many BR guys as I have. We are concerned about our discipline and don't have time to say the other shooting sports are pissy. You can say it however you want. Back to their national records, where can I verify them.
AC, address the answers to my statements. Where can I find an external March scope. Tell me why the new OZ made powders are old hat and how you know that. What is wrong with the new carbon fiber laminated stocks?
So BR shooters don't try different bullet shapes and size for their rifles?
AC, you need to pick another subject that you are current.
AC, I don't criticize any other shooting sport as I don't keep up with them and don't know what their problems are. I sure don't say they are behind times or do any experimentation.
I do know Blackstar was in the barrel electro bore business since 1994 or so and it would seem like they should be in the winner's circle by now.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by butchlambert:
AC,
I addressed your thoughts.
You are addressing nothing. You are old just like me, but I doubt that you have been around as many BR guys as I have. We are concerned about our discipline and don't have time to say the other shooting sports are pissy. You can say it however you want. Back to their national records, where can I verify them.

Butch I didn't say they set national records, I said that THEY said so, and I asked the question if those were just lies? If you don't know, then why not just say that you don't know but you don't believe them?


AC, address the answers to my statements. Where can I find an external March scope. I can only tell you that is what I read this month in a national shooting publication. It also said they were similar to the Burris, which had the reticule locking device, but I took their word that it was external. If it isn't, fine.

I will believe it a real benefit for shooters other than the small number who actually compete in benchrest, when I see large retail makers adopting the system and it selling well for a longer period of time than, say, moly coating bullets.

Tell me why the new OZ made powders are old hat and how you know that.

I did not say they were old hat. What I SAID was that 322 and 8208 have been on the market in various lots for years. And there is always some lot that is the "magic" lot that everyone must have to win with. Having yet another lot is progress? If it is justr recreating an old lot's characteristics, that isn't really new and experimental, is it?


What is wrong with the new carbon fiber laminated stocks?


Are they sturdy enough for shooters in general? Cheap enough? Balance well when not supported by bags front and rear? Those are all important things to most shooters for general applicaion to the shooting arms they use. So, again, IF they last long enough even in the benchrest world not to be considered a passing fad, exactly how are they serving the great shooting unwashed as new developments? Are you sure they are not just a relatively impractical but pricey way of going to an extreme to apply something which is not at all new...the use of heavier barrels... while staying within some artifical weight limit set by benchrest rules?

There is no point continuing with this Butch. I respect you as an individual but I am afraid I am not a benchrest true believer now and never will be again.

You are welcome to believe as you wish, and so am I, fortunately for both of us.

And I still think this would be a more useful site if folks were not so quick to label one product or another a POS just because their's did not work for them, and then all pile on as if they had all used the product.

I won't even ask you if YOU have ever used a Blackstar barrel..

Actually I was supplied a couple. They did not perform. The March scopes are not like a Burris. They do not have a locking thing. All retail makers have to do is what March has done. Build quality!
The T powder or T32 has not been produced in about 20+ years. The original 8208 has not been produced for many years. the original 8208 was surplus military powder.
AC, you know better than say are they cheap enough and so on about the stocks. Do they make Ferrari cars cheap, no?
Benchrest is similar to a race car. You buy the best that you can find and it ain't cheap. BR rifles are pretty much a one time purchase. Just buy a new barrel every once and a while.
I guess you got me off on a tangent. I don't like Blackstar barrels for BR.