I want to know what barrel he's using! I want one! (I have a 264 win mag that ended up at 23", I've not shot it because it needed work etc., but have started the loading process to dial in and if it shoots bad.....)

Red

KC, I have a 25 pin set of Deltronic pins in each of the bore sizes from 223 to 458. They are in .0001 increments. A good way to accurately check a bore size.
Butch

This is kinda interesting, and relates to my situation in several ways, and in several ways it is different. I can certainly see why RC is passionate about it. I think it’s because he believes he was given a load of BS.

It’s sad in a way, because the way it’s presented is pitting the credibility of his unstated/unknown gunsmith against Woody/LW. That’s sorta the set-up I have, because I refuse to disclose who my gunsmith is, not because I’m hiding something, but because I don’t want any harm to come to him over this, (or anyone) and I want to maintain good relations with him, and Woody. It’s that simple. Gunsmiths have a hard enough time making a living and they don’t need to deal with or feel crap from internet discussions. I certainly don’t want my gunsmith worried whatsoever about something I post on AR. I want him to focus his concern on the job that I’ve sent to him.

I feel concern for Woody too, but in any discussion of LW barrels, he is automatically included, so might as well go by first name. But, I’m going to avoid making it personal, and saying stuff that criticizes when I don’t absolutely know what I’m dealing with or talking about.

That said, now for the differences and similarities:

In my case, the barrel hasn’t been fired, so pressure is not an issue - yet. Nor is the use of exotic powder, or powder not designed for a cartridge in this class. I'm thinking that plain H4350 will be close to ideal for the 323 Hollis, and that's the powder I'll start with.

The barrel is new, so measurements of the bore should be precise. LW specs are listed on their web site. As far as I know the lands on all LW barrels are a few thousandths tighter than std US made barrels. The groves are bullet diameter. For a gunsmith to say that the bore (Lands) is tight, is right, when the gunsmith is comparing to say a Shilen or Douglas. The question is so what? It may result in a different pressure curve or not. However, with thousands of satisfied customers, I would guess that ½ or ¾ thousands (.0005 - .00075) may not matter – if that’s really the case. The difference in comparison to US barrels seems to me as normal with LW barrels.

This expression of measurment in 1/1000 of an inch is a bit tricky. I'm thinking that .001 is one thousandth of an inch. So 1/2 or 3/4 of that is .0005 and .00075 respectively. I'm thinking that the gunsmith meant to say 5/1000ths or 7.5/1000ths, (.005 or .0075). This is based on .323 being the bullet diameter of an 8mm bullet 3/10 + 2/100 + 3/1000 = .323 of an inch.

I have a custom reamer from PTG, and drawing specs of the reamer, throat and all, so there will be no doubt about the chamber specs or the throat. LW’s web page shows .323 Grove, and .311 Lands. Initially, the reamer had a .315 pilot, which had to be replaced because it wouldn’t go in the bore. That’s at least .004 tighter that the reamer maker presumed as std. – again the presumption is the use of a US made barrel. The .315 pilot easily fit into the bore of my 8mm Douglas barrel, for comparison. Am I concerned? No, not at all, because for one thing I know the specs up front. They are listed on the site, and with thousands of other satisfied customers, I think I can make a pretty good guess that it doesn’t matter.

Another reason the tighter specs (lands) in theory doesn’t matter to me right now is because I’m having a wildcat made. It’s gonna be all handloads, which I’ll develop. So I have no expectation of screaming velocity. I do have expectations of very good accuracy. Whatever velocity I can safely get out of it will be enough.

LW is going to finish the chamber with my reamer, and also crown the barrel. So argument between the gunsmith and LW on this issue should not exist (hopefully).

As for the LW barrel being “harder”, it’s my understanding that it has better wear characteristics, but not necessarily harder. Woody says my barrel is HRC 20.1, whatever that means, and if I heard him right. It’s my understanding that LW50 has different cutting characteristics, but not necessarily harder steel.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:

quote:

See with all the bad opinions floating around about LW I honestly don't know who to believe. Personally I stick with tried and true. Douglas, Shilen, Hart, Pac Nor,

My poor opinion of LW has to do with customer relations, not necessarily barrel quality, accuracy. I have one that shoots and 2 now that wouldn't.

The idea of really hard steel for long barrel life I think is great, especially for high intensity cartridges. But it seems from other members input, it may be at the expense of accuracy.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
my dealings with Woody Woodall was the accusation by him that all my loads were of the 75K PSI variety

I told him that that was impossible. I even called Hodgdon and spoke to the ballistician. He told me he doubted I could get enough US-869 in the case to have that happen. It's slow and WC-872 is much slower

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
My gunsmith also found that the barrel was tight by 1/2 to 3/4 of a thousandth.

LW disagreed and stated it was to specification.

LW stated,

quote:

There is an oddity in the chamber.

My gunsmith disagreed saying it has a taper of 1 1/2 degrees.

LW stated,

quote:

The crown lacks an inner chamber. This is a 45 to 60 degree angle joining the land and the groove to the muzzle face. It reinforces the release area of the bullet. In this barrel's case, the angle is not there. There is also notches at the exit point and some burring.

My gunsmith examined the crown and could find nothing wrong with it.

LW told me that the barrel was so worn that I had to have been firing 75K PSI rounds.

LW rechambered it and recrowned it. I've heard of this but have never seen anything like it. 200 fps less velocity with the same worthless accuracy.

quote:

Originally posted by kcstott:
RC
I don't think a lot of smiths have gage pins in .0002" increments. So how was he able to accurately measure the bore?

The crown is easy, either the chamfer is there or it's not.

Either way, what LW is saying is that there is no throat and that should be easy to see even on the smallest of calibers

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:

I'm not sure what he uses to measure with. He told me I may not be able to achieve the velocity I was looking for when I picked it up immediately after he finished it because of the undersized bore specifications.

He obviously can measure the bore dimensions to the 1/2 thousandth or he wouldn't have been able to tell me it was off by 1/2 to 3/4 a thousandth.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
My gunsmith also found that the barrel was tight by 1/2 to 3/4 of a thousandth.

LW disagreed and stated it was to specification.

My gunsmith chambered the barrel with the same reamer that a friend of mine's rifle was chambered with. He can't get his to shoot worse than .3" groups.

LW stated,

quote:

There is an oddity in the chamber. There is no real angle between the leade and the bore. The forward section of the chamber ends and the undisturbed bore begins. There should be an angle on the lands leading to the leade diameter. The throat shows the intersection of the land and groove at the same place. It is a finite line of demarcation. What you should see is no land or groove, this is the leade. Then rifling starts and goes up ange. The groove is formed and terminates at the grove diameter and the lands continue on until they get to the land diameter.

My gunsmith disagreed saying it has a taper of 1 1/2 degrees.

LW stated,

quote:

The crown lacks an inner chamber. This is a 45 ro 60 degree angle joining the land and the groove to the muzzle face. It reinforces the release area of the bullet. In this barrel's case, the angle is not there. There is also notches at the exit point and some burring.

My gunsmith examined the crown and could find nothing wrong with it.

He is one of the best in the country. He built the F-Class National Champion's rifle and the 6.5 Creedmoor I used to grab a share of the course record at the Whittington Sporting Rifle Match. He is a competitor as well. I have faith in his work. It is proven.

I was loading US-869 with the 140's mostly in the .264 WM. Found the max was around 80 grains in my rifle. My gunsmith had some WC-872 that Stonecreek loads and I was excited to try it. Found the max with the 140's was around 81 grains in my rifle. My gunsmith had throated it so I could seat the 140's out far enough to have room for the slow powders.

After about 200 rounds, I gave up on the barrel.

LW told me that the barrel was so worn that I had to have been firing 75K PSI rounds.

I ran the numbers on Quickload with my gunsmith and found that even the max load was within .264 WM specs; Less than 62K. I never had any consistent pressure signs. LW stated that with "the oddity in the chamber" that I could have been shooting 75K PSI loads and would not have known it from the brass

LW rechambered it and recrowned it. When I got it back, I went out with a ladder loaded with the WC-872. Remember I had found the max at 81 grains before.

I started the ladder at 76 grains to be safe. I fired about 7 rounds, the 76 grainers and the 76.5's. I had to use the handle of a screwdriver against the bolt handle and tap it with a crescent wrench to open the bolt on about 3 rounds. I've heard of this but have never seen anything like it. 200 fps less velocity with the same worthless accuracy.

A Brux will be used.

Powders take on a totally different personality when used in situations other then their original designed purpose which for US869 is for use in the 50 BMG. That is its purpose. Yes they offer data for many conventional small bore rounds but to my knowledge, all their burn rate and temp change sensitivity testing was performed on the 50 BMG test platform.

I also do not like burn rate charts either, to fixed and it seems every one is different, sometimes dramatically different.

In my experience I would say the the burn rate of US869 has ranged from very slightly slower then Retumbo to slightly faster then the old H-870 and H-50BMG. I have yet to find a lot of US869 which when loaded in conventional bore rifles produces a burn rate as slow as these two powders but they may be out there.

As far as the temp change stablility, again, in a 50 BMG this powder may perform as advertised but in convention bore rifles, you better develope your loads in warmer temps if you even intend to shoot in these temps.

Its a good powder but I think it has been a bit misunderstood mainly because of the claims of Hodgdon. Most are not using this powder in the 50 BMG but they are taking the advertisements of Hodgdon as fact over a wide range of chambering choices and this simply has not been the case in my experience.

TO be honest, this powder seems to perform extremely similar to the old H-870 and WC-872 but faster in burn rate then either of these two powders. I will say it is slightly cleaner burning then WC872 but when both are loaded to top working pressures, not a big difference. That is the trick with these powders, they have a pretty narrow pressure window where then burn relatively clean. That is on the top 10% of the pressure range in my experience. They really like 65,000 psi or slightly more to burn clean. Only problem is that there are not to many chamberings out there that have the right balance of case capacity to bore diameter and bullet weight to make this possible, I know if a few that do though!!

One should never ever go by burn rate charts. Different cartridges and different chambers change the burn rate of powder.

BTW I've shot lots and lots of 867 (notice 867 not 869) powder and it's no ways near as slow as the dealers push it to. In fact one dealer lists it and 872 as to using H870 and Accurate 8700 loading. Do that and you may find yourself in trouble.

quote:

In my experience I would say the the burn rate of US869 has ranged from very slightly slower then Retumbo to slightly faster then the old H-870 and H-50BMG. I have yet to find a lot of US869 which when loaded in conventional bore rifles produces a burn rate as slow as these two powders but they may be out there

IME and Stonecreek's, the US-869 is much slower than the H-870 in the .264 WM. Although the "H-870" I have is actually surplus H-870 sold by Thunderbird Cartridge Co. as "T-870"

quote:

BTW I've shot lots and lots of 867 (notice 867 not 869) powder and it's no ways near as slow as the dealers push it to. In fact one dealer lists it and 872 as to using H870 and Accurate 8700 loading. Do that and you may find yourself in trouble.

Again, in the .264, I have found WC-872 to be much slower than US-869. If you use suggested starting loads for the H-870 with the 872 you'll have no issues. You'll be able to go about 4 to 5 grains more WC-872.

I've been working on the .264 for about 3 years!

Depending on how a .264 WM is throated, it will digest about 80 grains of WC-872 pushing a 140 grain bullet. One with a SAAMI zero-leade throat might take a bit less, while one throated to seat a 140 graier all the way out to the 3.6" length of some magazines may take as much as 82 grains, which is about all of the WC-872 you can get in a once-fired .264 case.

Regardless of throat, I sincerely doubt that you could get enough WC-872 into a .264 case to reach 75,000 PSI, short of something like jamming a monometal bullet into the lands.

Lots of surplus powders do vary, so my experience with WC-872 may not exactly match that of someone working with another lot. Both WC-872 and WC-860 (again, in the lots I've worked with) are substantially slower than anything sold as H-870, or its stick stablemate, H-570. WC-872 works quite well with both the .264 and 7mm STW, and should be excellent in the 7mm RUM, and the .300-378 WBY. Agreed, powders vary in behavior with the size of the case, the bore, and the sectional density of the projectile; however I've found WC-872 to be quite predictable and well-mannered in all the applications I've used it in.

Faster powders in the .264 are potential bombs which can exhibit pressure excursions without warning when the charge is increased incrementally. I've owned a .264 since 1964 and have worked with a number of them. Incidentally, my 1964 vintage .264 has a throat that looks like alligator hide for the first inch in front of the chamber. It also never turns in a group as larg as an inch.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:

quote:

Originally posted by Marc:
rcamuglia,
Please keep me posted on how the Brux barrel works out. When do you expect to have it done? My LW barrel shoots good at low velocities but that isn't really the point of a 264. I might get it worked out yet but I have considered trying a Brux.

My LW50 7-08 barrel shoots nice groups with Nosler BT's. It fouls very little too.

I will.

My 22-250 barrel by LW shoots well as I've posted twice before. Maybe a problem with the .264 barrels? Both .264 barrels I had fouled terribly. Wherever the problem lies, the real failure is in dealing with the unhappy customer.

A sure way to smaller profits and bad press.

quote:

By kcstott;
RC
With out looking at the barrel I'd have to lean toward LW 60/40 on this.

I don't think a lot of smiths have gage pins in .0002" increments. So how was he able to accurately measure the bore?

The crown is easy, either the chamfer is there or it's not.

Either way what LW is say is that there is no throat and that should be easy to see even on the smallest of calibers

I'm not sure what he uses to measure with. He told me I may not be able to achieve the velocity I was looking for when I picked it up immediately after he finished it because of the undersized bore specifications.

He obviously can measure the bore dimensions to the 1/2 thousandth or he wouldn't have been able to tell me it was off by 1/2 to 3/4 a thousandth. Is it your thought that he's making it up?

There was plenty of throat. I had it long throated to accomodate longer COL.

The crown is the same as he has ever done on any of my rifles or any that have won National Championships.

How can you come to your conclusion without seeing the barrel, knowing my gunsmith and his history, knowing my load development practices, knowing my shooting skills? I own rifles that shoot sub .5 MOA groups made by my gunsmith.



1.25" 3-shot 600 yard group with the Creedmoor


1/2" 3-shot 300 yard group with the Creedmoor


.23" 4-shot 100 yard group from the Creedmoor


little over 1" 5-shot group from a .300 WM Chambered by my gunsmith


Factory .223 A-Bolt group at 100 yards


Factory .243 WSSM A-Bolt group at 300 yards



Have you never chambered a barrel that was incapable of acceptable accuracy? I've got plenty of FACTORY rifles that are capable of better accuracy than the CM LW barrel last installed.

That fact should tell you something.

RC. I have quite a bit of experience with LW barrels, most recently with 338 Lapua. (Non Civilian usage)

They don't use pins at all. Its all digital mapping or equal. Pins require "clean room" and "constant temperature" setups. Most of the time you can see where pins have been jammed in a barrel and "cocked" against the land.

Its a barrel plant,and thats the only thing they do.

And LW50 will tell on you. It will firecrack ( Their term) above 70K almost every time. Doesn't really matter though...almost all 338L go there.

In this case, I would suspect Quickload is at fault. If you miss a variable it will give you that kind of result.

It really seems that you are pushing the limit on your loads though. Look at the bright side, a normal 416R barrel would be gone in the 200-300 rounds you fired at that pressure.

Wow a lot of people are talking about measuring in tenths of a thousandth without knowing much of anything about it.

I forgot to PM you about this thread inorder that you could straighten out all of us.
Butch

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Wow a lot of people are talking about measuring in tenths of a thousandth without knowing much of anything about it.

OK, that’s why I posted it, so guys like you can have the pleasure of straightening us out.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
The barrel is new, so measurements of the bore should be precise. LW specs are listed on their web site. As far as I know the lands on all LW barrels are a few thousandths tighter than std US made barrels. The groves are bullet diameter. For a gunsmith to say that the bore (Lands) is tight, is right, when the gunsmith is comparing to say a Shilen or Douglas. The question is so what? It may result in a different pressure curve or not. However, with thousands of satisfied customers, I would guess that ½ or ¾ thousands (.0005 - .00075) may not matter – if that’s really the case. The difference in comparison to US barrels seems to me as normal with LW barrels.

This expression of measurment in 1/1000 of an inch is a bit tricky. I'm thinking that .001 is one thousandth of an inch. So 1/2 or 3/4 of that is .0005 and .00075 respectively. I'm thinking that the gunsmith meant to say 5/1000ths or 7.5/1000ths, (.005 or .0075). This is based on .323 being the bullet diameter of an 8mm bullet 3/10 + 2/100 + 3/1000 = .323 of an inch.

I have a custom reamer from PTG, and drawing specs of the reamer, throat and all, so there will be no doubt about the chamber specs or the throat. LW’s web page shows .323 Grove, and .311 Lands. Initially, the reamer had a .315 pilot, which had to be replaced because it wouldn’t go in the bore. That’s at least .004 tighter that the reamer maker presumed as std. – again the presumption is the use of a US made barrel. The .315 pilot easily fit into the bore of my 8mm Douglas barrel, for comparison. Am I concerned? No, not at all, because for one thing I know the specs up front. They are listed on the site, and with thousands of other satisfied customers, I think I can make a pretty good guess that it doesn’t matter.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
My gunsmith also found that the barrel was tight by 1/2 to 3/4 of a thousandth.

I'm not sure what he uses to measure with. He told me I may not be able to achieve the velocity I was looking for when I picked it up immediately after he finished it because of the undersized bore specifications.

He obviously can measure the bore dimensions to the 1/2 thousandth or he wouldn't have been able to tell me it was off by 1/2 to 3/4 a thousandth.

LW disagreed and stated it was to specification.

quote:

Originally posted by SR4759:
Wow a lot of people are talking about measuring in tenths of a thousandth without knowing much of anything about it.

Well I trust Butch.
I wouldn't trust a run of the mill Smith to tell the difference between a few tenths but if he says Butch he has a set of gage pins in .0001" increments covering standard bore sizes. I believe him. As that is the only cheep way to do it.

Slugging is not accurate enough. Air gauging is to damn expensive. so gauge pins are the only way to do it. And Butch's 25 piece set was probably around $300 retail

I'm sure my smith uses pin gauges. I watched him use them on my .300 win target rifle to assess the bore.

And TOMAHAWK61,

I know who you are. Quit hiding behind your fake Internet name....

WOODY WOODALL

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
My gunsmith also found that the barrel was tight by 1/2 to 3/4 of a thousandth.

I'm not sure what he uses to measure with. He told me I may not be able to achieve the velocity I was looking for when I picked it up immediately after he finished it because of the undersized bore specifications.

He obviously can measure the bore dimensions to the 1/2 thousandth or he wouldn't have been able to tell me it was off by 1/2 to 3/4 a thousandth.

LW disagreed and stated it was to specification.

Now you say:

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
I'm sure my smith uses pin gauges.

I think whatever he used to measure it with is besides the point.

If I'm reading that right, please explain how .0005" to .00075" (less than one thousandth of an inch) can cause a gunsmith to say that a barrel has a tight bore, and thus likely to have an effect on velocity?

KB

All I know is what he told me.

It makes sense

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
I'm sure my smith uses pin gauges. I watched him use them on my .300 win target rifle to assess the bore.

And TOMAHAWK61,

I know who you are. Quit hiding behind your fake Internet name....

WOODY WOODALL

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
All I know is what he told me.

It makes sense

It doesn't make sense to me. Does it make sense to anyone?

Also, Woody's handle on AR is besides the point as well. It's especially besides the point of my reasons for starting this thread. If you are correct, about the handle, so what? I see no reason why Woody can't post here, and certainly it may help with factual info about LW barrels, to the benefit of all readers. I consider it a golden opportunity to learn something actually useful.

I can only hope he is wise enough to not get sucked into your trolling for a personal fight with him.

KB

I'm just curious which barrel is great on the 264 win mag?

Red

quote:

Originally posted by Dago Red:
I'm just curious which barrel is great on the 264 win mag?

Red

Perhaps the correct answer is a LW50 barrel, correctly chambered, throated, crowned and installed. There are several gunsmiths here on AR who say they can do it well. PM them. Since the cartridge is a known barrel burner, the extra wear resistance claimed by LW may make it the perfect barrel for the 264WM.

Good question.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
All I know is what he told me.

It makes sense

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
I'm sure my smith uses pin gauges. I watched him use them on my .300 win target rifle to assess the bore.

And TOMAHAWK61,

I know who you are. Quit hiding behind your fake Internet name....

WOODY WOODALL

Hmmm.. Thanks but, No! Taller and thinner.

You could actually look on my profile and get my email if you were not just looking to pick a fight.

And I will rise to the bait. All from your postings.

1. You did not actually buy a barrel from LW. So when you started this,there was no record of you at all.
2. You took the barrel away from your gunsmith because he took too long. I understand that he had worked on LW barrels before.
3. New smith did poor work and the barrel was in bad repair. You did mention a problem in the chamber or he chambered it before threading, I really don't remember.
4. Third gunsmith "fixed" it. and it had poor velocity or accuracy. Did he fire it?

Then you finally called tha manufacturer and he did not respond to give you a free barrel.

Did I miss anything.

And I am not Woody Woodall.

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:


And TOMAHAWK61,

I know who you are. Quit hiding behind your fake Internet name....

WOODY WOODALL

Rich

No offense, but you must not have much experience with Woody. If you had you would know that any defense he posted could never have been so concise.

Jason.

Thanks! I think!

I have known Woody for over 30 years and he kinda rubs off on you some. He does know his stuff.

I think the issue is that people call in to ask a question, don't like the answer and want to argue their point.

And for Rick's benifit, I was a VP at Cobb Manufacturing for the 338 Lapus Semi auto Project. Did ALL the breifings on the platform until the company was bought by Freedom Group.

I am not too hard to find.

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't mean it as an insult.

Just found it strange that you've been an AR member since 2008 with 10 total posts, about half on this LW thread?

quote:

On second thought, perhaps the correct answer is a LW50 barrel, correctly chambered, throated, crowned and installed. There are several gunsmiths here on AR who say they can do it well. PM them. Since the cartridge is a known barrel burner, the extra wear resistance claimed by LW may make it the perfect barrel for the 264WM.

KB,

You need to remove your nose from Woody's behind.

I know what you are trying to get done with this thread. If you thought my or anyone's experience with LW or Woody might jeapordize that, you shouldn't have started this topic.

Also you shouldn't have started it with the fact that your gunsmith thinks that the best use for LW barrels are for pry bars.

I've never met you or anyone else here. If LW doesn't help you because of this thread or anyone's posts on it, it really should tell you something.

quote:

Originally posted by TOMAHAWK61:
Jason.

Thanks! I think!

I have known Woody for over 30 years and he kinda rubs off on you some. He does know his stuff.

I think the issue is that people call in to ask a question, don't like the answer and want to argue their point.

Woody is a nice guy and is very eager to share his knowledge. The only time this becomes a problem is when you need to get off the phone in a timely manner...


But you will learn some thing each time you speak to him.

RC,

One thing I've avoided is giving you advice. I noticed that you suggest that I need to do this, and should do that, and shouldn't do something else.

As I read it, your track record with LW, Woody, etc, being right on, isn't too good. So why should I listen to you about anything?

Try getting a second and third barrel out of Shillen or Douglas, or Lilja, etc., under similar circumstances. Try bitching on the internet about it - in a post you started, and see how far it gets you. How many gunsmiths and barrels will it take for you to be satisfied? I think that is the question.

I' have mixed feelings about your situation, which I can relate to, been on rips myself a time or two, aside from this LW issue. On the one hand I can see your frustration and lingering issues. On the other hand it's a bit annoying, like you have invaded this thread. Either way, it is as it is, so proceed. Good luck.

KB

Take the advice as advice. It's not a command.

You solicited input from the Board on Lothar Walther and I gave it to you and the Board. It was my experience and nothing but the truth. As you all can see, I'm pissed. Sorry it annoys you because you think it may hurt Woody's feelings and he may get mad and not do your work for you.

How many barrels to be satisfied? As many as it takes to achieve the accuracy that a custom, aftermarket barrel is supposed to give! Would you be thrilled with an expensive barrel and even more expensive smithing that results in a 1.5" gun? I think no one in their right mind would.

There is an expectation that the product will deliver certain performance and when it doesn't dissatisfaction sets in.

BTW, Lothar Walther is the "last" gunsmith to finish the work on the barrel. When he told me to send in the rifle, he told me to take it back to my smith first, have him loosen the barrel so they could work on it.

I thought that was a very strange request. What kind of gunsmith is LW if they don't have a wrench and a vise?

When it came back, it shot the same as it did before, 1.6" groups, except at 200 fps slower and you had to hammer the bolt to open it at 4 grains less powder




I hope you get what you want from them and it works out better than my experience.

Best Wishes

quote:

KB,

You need to remove your nose from Woody's behind.

Let's see KB started this post because he had concerns and issues with a LW barrel. Now he has his nose up Woody's behind.

Let me get this straight If I order a barrel for a say a .284 and it arrives and a smith then tells me that he has meassured the bore to only be .2835 that I should not expect acceptable velocity????? Excuse me if I don't run to the bank with that one.

Paul,
I don't think that's what happened, or the facts.

See this: http://www.lothar-walther.de/376.php

KB

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

quote:

KB,

You need to remove your nose from Woody's behind.

Let's see KB started this post because he had concerns and issues with a LW barrel. Now he has his nose up Woody's behind.

Let me get this straight If I order a barrel for a say a .284 and it arrives and a smith then tells me that he has meassured the bore to only be .2835 that I should not expect acceptable velocity????? Excuse me if I don't run to the bank with that one.

I guess my gunsmith doesn't know what he's talking about then

Ask toomanytools about him in a PM.

quote:

Paul,
I don't think that's what happened, or the facts.

See this: http://www.lothar-walther.de/376.php

KB

OK I'm confused. I was simply saying you had started the thread becasue you had concerns over a LW barrel. The rcamuglia was saying you had your nose up Woody's behind. Which would to me be 180degrees off. I should have just stayed out of it.

rcamuglia- I'm not saying your smith didn't tell you that or believe what he is telling you. I do question that normal smith can measure it and if can can measured where? The chamber area, crown area or full bore????

If in fact .0005" could make a difference wouldn't the length over which it exists play a major part as well.

I'm only stating my opinion. That and $$ will buy you . I just have trouble believing that .0005" will have a noticable impact on velocity. I would need to see some actual test data to buy into it. If it floats your boat go for it.

Here is what Shilen says. So I quess they measure it? Still question if it will affect velocity.

Select Match Grade
These stainless steel masterpieces of machining and hand lapping are intended for the competition shooter-- or even the hunter-- who wants the ultimate in accuracy and quality. These are our highest grade barrel and, of course, the most costly. What makes them so good that benchrest shooters, such as Tony Boyer, crave them? Consider this: To meet Select Match Grade criteria, the groove diameter must air gauge within .0003" of our standard diameter. Moreover, the uniformity of the bore cannot vary more than .0001" for the entire length of the barrel. These barrels are also completely stress relieved, and the bore is polished to a gleaming surface finish by our most experienced lappers.

Match Grade
Our Match Grade barrels don't quite meet Select Match criteria-- but not by much! In these barrels, the bore must measure within .0005" of our standard diameter and cannot vary in diameter more than .0003" for the length of the barrel. So how much accuracy does a couple of "tenths" give away, compared to our Select Match barrels? Perhaps not any! The point is, whether or not there is any real difference in the accuracy potential between the Match and Select Match grades, the really demanding shooter must play it safe and go with the higher grade. In many cartridges and barrel twists, the accuracy difference between the two simply can't be detected. So unless you're gunning for one-hole groups or just demand the top of the line, the Match Grade barrel is your best choice for many forms of competitive shooting and for hunting varmints and big game. The Match Grade is completely stress relieved and fully warranted. The price of Match Grade stainless steel barrels includes hand lapping to a beautifully smooth surface. Chrome-moly can be lapped to a similar finish at an additional charge.

You guys are off your rocker.

If a Smith tells me the bore is too tight by 1/2 to 3/4 of a thousandth. I want to see what he used to measure it with. The Smiths in my area are lucky to have a set of dial calipers and a one inch mic let alone decent bore mics or a .0001" increment pin gauge set.

I'm not saying they are incapable of making that measurement but I'd damn sure want to see how he's doing this.

I can set up my harig head on the surface plate using my tenths indicator, indicate a pin in the v block then press down on the corners of the either the height gauge or the harig head and can influence the reading. When you are dealing with half thousandths and smaller increments everything has to be spotless clean. and you procedure has to be as uninfluenced as possible by outside forces.

The other thing is people take that dial indicator as gospel. Well it has a built in tolerance too. look in the little sheet that came with it. .0005" indicators are usually good for +-.0001" repeatability and calibrated to +-.0005" and a .00005" indicator is only good for +-.00002" repeatability and calibrated to .0001"

So right there you could be off unless you have something to compare it to. Which is why all tool rooms have a set of standards to reference to. Same in my shop Grade B gage blocks with the worst gage block being out of spec by 35 millionths of an inch. And for what I do they are more the accurate enough.
We won't even get into the temperature control of gages either. We could debate for eons on that one

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

quote:

Paul,
I don't think that's what happened, or the facts.

See this: http://www.lothar-walther.de/376.php

KB

OK I'm confused. I was simply saying you had started the thread becasue you had concerns over a LW barrel. The rcamuglia was saying you had your nose up Woody's behind. Which would to me be 180degrees off. I should have just stayed out of it.

rcamuglia- I'm not saying your smith didn't tell you that or believe what he is telling you. I do question that it can be measured and if can can measured where? The chamber area, crown area or full bore????

If in fact .0005" could make a difference wouldn't the length over which it exists play a major part as well.

I'm only stating my opinion. That and $$ will buy you . I just have trouble believing that .0005" will have a noticable impact on velocity. I would need to see some actual test data to buy into it. If it floats your boat go for it.

All I know is that he measured the dimensions of the bore, found them to be out of spec on the tight side, and told me I may not achieve the velocity I wanted because of it. Has anyone found this situation to be true.

It is my first experience with it. Like I said it makes sense. Tight bore, more constriction, more pressure trying to force a relatively larger diameter projectile down its length.

KB is concerned now that he has had multiple replies agreeing with his gunsmith that this will hamper his object of getting LW to come through. His posting content is to soften criticism and misdirect...

quote:

It is my first experience with it. Like I said it makes sense. Tight bore, more constriction, more pressure trying to force a relatively larger diameter projectile down its length

Your smith says to standard, Shilen says .0003 and .0005 from their std. In reading Shilen their normal barrel could be +/-.0005. I agree that a tight bore would hinder velocity. I'm simply having trouble with .0005 making a difference I can see and measure and a normal smith being able to measure the entire bore.

As to me it is one thing I will not worry about. Because I believe ther are many more things that will affect the velocity outcome than .0005.

As I said if you feel it make sense then go for it. Your opinion is just as valid as mine.

quote:

All I know is that he measured the dimensions of the bore, found them to be out of spec on the tight side, and told me I may not achieve the velocity I wanted because of it. Has anyone found this situation to be true.

I've installed maybe fifty barrels in my lifetime.....a small number compared to some here.....but have never come close to finding a barrel out of spec.....and I fully concurr with kscott who says that very few gunsmiths are capable of that measurement....or have the tools to do so.....

One has little choice but to believe his smith....but that don't make the smith right!

I've run into many experienced machinists that are not qualified to make that measurement....big talk....no walk!

I've never installed or cut in any manner a LW barrel and from this thread I'm thankful for that.....there's plenty of other very fine barrels to pick from.

My point:....don't put 100% stock in what a gunsmith said.....some of them are simply full-of-shit....and then we have some very capable, competent, and skilled smiths. No different than any profession for that matter!

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:
Paul,
I don't think that's what happened, or the facts.

See this: http://www.lothar-walther.de/376.php

KB

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:
KB is concerned now that he has had multiple replies agreeing with his gunsmith that this will hamper his object of getting LW to come through. His posting content is to soften criticism and misdirect...

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

quote:

It is my first experience with it. Like I said it makes sense. Tight bore, more constriction, more pressure trying to force a relatively larger diameter projectile down its length

Your smith says to standard, Shilen says .0003 and .0005 from their std. In reading Shilen their normal barrel could be +/-.0005. I agree that a tight bore would hinder velocity. I'm simply having trouble with .0005 making a difference I can see and measure and a normal smith being able to measure the entire bore.

As to me it is one thing I will not worry about. Because I believe there are many more things that will affect the velocity outcome than .0005.

RC,
You have misstated my point. I don’t see multiple agreement with my gunsmith, any more than I see multiple disagreement with him. And I’m not trying to soften criticism and misdirect. I am trying to cut through internet BS, some of which is coming from you.

My point is also in agreement with ramrod. I’ve said it several times and ways. I doubt that .0005” will make any difference in pressure, or otherwise. That’s within tolerance of most any barrel maker.

What I’m saying is that it appears to me that all LW barrels have tighter (or taller) lands than most of the common US made barrels. It’s in the carbide button. They are designed to pull through the steel blend specified by US barrel makers, and to last a long time. LW buttons make deeper grooves. It’s shown in the spec on their web page. It exists on your 22-250 just as it does in the 264, and my 8mm.

I simply think you are misquoting your gunsmith. As I said, I know for a fact that my reamer had a .315 pilot, which fits into the bore of the Douglas 8mm barrel just right, but wouldn’t go into the LW barrel. Changing the pilot to .311, just as the LW specs show, allows the pilot to fit. I’m saying that I think the same situation exists with your barrel, and your gunsmith declared it tight, thinking in terms of US barrels, and LW says it’s within specs – their specs.

I'm thinking you are both right, but you just said it wrong. 1/2 of a thousandth is .0005, five ten-thousandths, 5/10,000.

Five thousandths is .005. The decimal place is a Big difference in barrel specs.

I’m writing this quickly, so please excuse if I made some mistakes.

KB

OK I haven't read through the entire thread in one go here, but with these tolerances being bandied about might it not be a better approach to simply measure the bullets being used? It sure sounds like some of the tolerances being mentioned here are less than those than for the bullets, especially variations between lots. If the bullets are too big, maybe they could just be kept in the freezer to get them to the size needed........

Again, without reading the entire thread nonstop but doing the daily glancing at it I may have missed something crucial, but it sure seems like a bunch of miscommunication/misinformation situation. Maybe precipitated by a mechanical issue but I've found a lot of stuff that can be successfully dealt with if timely communication happens before things go wonky and people start pointing fingers.

One more comment and then I'll shut up here, but I do not fault LW, OR ANY OTHER SHOP, for sending an action back to have the barrel loosened. I'm sure they have the capability to remove most anything stuck, but what if they had cracked the receiver trying, maybe because it was loctited or epoxied? If I had to fix a problem child ANYTHING, the last thing I am going to do is risk breaking something unrelated when I do it.

Mark, excellent post, and consistant with my point as well, in all respects.

LW specs on their web site shows .323 as the groove specs for the 8mm barrel I have, and likewise for the other calibers. This is bullet diameter. So as far as I know the pressure issue would come from different groove diameter, compared to bullet diameter, (they should be very - very close to the same) and to a lesser degree from deeper lands cut into the bullet as it passes.

KB

RC,

You mentioned the firecracking in bore. We're talking heat here. I don't know if you know or not military powders have other parameter to follow that sporting powders don't. Don't take that wrong because some military powders and sporting powders are one in the same. With that said many of these slow burning military powders like 860, 867, 872, etc., for one thing being double based ball powders burn hot. The other thing many of them are designed to burn hotter to ignite tracer ammo. Burning 81 grains of 872 in a 264 Win Mag to me would be a lot of heat!

From what I'm gathering you're wanting the most velocity that you can be had from the 264 Win Mag, but also accuracy. This reminds me of Weatherby. The way he achieved it was with large powder volume and very long free bore. Most the time that resulted in so so accuracy, but he did get the velocity.

I've owned many LW barrel and would be shocked to see one that had a "rough" bore. Hell that's even rare today with an E.R. Shaw barrel.

In closing I wonder if you'd been better suited chambering for a 6.5/284 or 6.5-06? Preferably the first one.

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
RC,

You mentioned the firecracking in bore. We're talking heat here. I don't know if you know or not military powders have other parameter to follow that sporting powders don't. Don't take that wrong because some military powders and sporting powders are one in the same. With that said many of these slow burning military powders like 860, 867, 872, etc., for one thing being double based ball powders burn hot. The other thing many of them are designed to burn hotter to ignite tracer ammo. Burning 81 grains of 872 in a 264 Win Mag to me would be a lot of heat!

From what I'm gathering you're wanting the most velocity that you can be had from the 264 Win Mag, but also accuracy. This reminds me of Weatherby. The way he achieved it was with large powder volume and very long free bore. Most the time that resulted in so so accuracy, but he did get the velocity.

I've owned many LW barrel and would be shocked to see one that had a "rough" bore. Hell that's even rare today with an E.R. Shaw barrel.

In closing I wonder if you'd been better suited chambering for a 6.5/284 or 6.5-06? Preferably the first one.

I never mentioned firecracking that I can recall. But the first barrel I had that had an unbelievably rough section about 4" long (around the center of the barrel length) and was incredibly firecracked in front of the chamber. I was there when it was scoped and saw it with my own peepers through my gunsmith's Hawkeye. At that time 3 years ago (that's how long this BS has been going on) the only powders I was using were H-4831, Retumbo, etc.. for testing trying to find accuracy. That barrel had only 400 rounds through it. None of the slow powders were used. It would take 7 rounds before it would group, then shoot 2 good groups, then after those 12 shots go back to terrible.

As I've posted before here, it was so rough that during cleaning you could feel the patch being grabbed by the bore and actually hear it shredding. Of course WW said there was nothing wrong with that barrel either.

This barrel has about 200 down the bore and I haven't seen the inside although WW said it showed enough wear to maybe half of its life left. 200 rounds and only half left? And this from the super duper L-50 steel?



The throat was made longer so that the bullet would not take up valuable case capacity, not for "Weatherby" reasons. I was able to seat to the lands if I wanted to. Very similar to the chamber set up Stonecreek refers to.

It's an overbore as you know just as is the 7RUM I own. You want to talk about heat?

My smith uses gauge pins. It's pretty simple. If the land diameter is supposed to be .256" and you insert the proper pin and it won't fit, the bore is tighter. He says you can feel the way they fit. I guess it's just 35 years of doing it that makes the difference.

I haven't measured any LW 8mm barrels, but I CAN tell you that many Euro 8mm barrels have dimensions that are all over the map. Deep grooves of up to 0.328" are quite common in the older barrels, for instance. This is true of not only the military Mausers and 1888 Commission rifles but also the Mannlicher-Schoenauer M1908s I've measured as well. I haven't paid much attention to the bore diameters, only the grooves, and all the ones I fired seemed to group fine with no unusual pressure or lack-of-pressure signs. I figured that the deep grooves were a carryover from the black and semi-smokeless days and paid no further attention.

My point is that LW may be using the deep grooves which would require a smaller 8mm bore diameter, fitting in with the tight bore observation. A chamber/bore cast will tell the tale.
Regards, Joe

quote:

Originally posted by rcamuglia:

quote:

Originally posted by SmokinJ:
RC,

You mentioned the firecracking in bore. We're talking heat here. I don't know if you know or not military powders have other parameter to follow that sporting powders don't. Don't take that wrong because some military powders and sporting powders are one in the same. With that said many of these slow burning military powders like 860, 867, 872, etc., for one thing being double based ball powders burn hot. The other thing many of them are designed to burn hotter to ignite tracer ammo. Burning 81 grains of 872 in a 264 Win Mag to me would be a lot of heat!

From what I'm gathering you're wanting the most velocity that you can be had from the 264 Win Mag, but also accuracy. This reminds me of Weatherby. The way he achieved it was with large powder volume and very long free bore. Most the time that resulted in so so accuracy, but he did get the velocity.

I've owned many LW barrel and would be shocked to see one that had a "rough" bore. Hell that's even rare today with an E.R. Shaw barrel.

In closing I wonder if you'd been better suited chambering for a 6.5/284 or 6.5-06? Preferably the first one.

I never mentioned firecracking that I can recall. But the first barrel I had that had an unbelievably rough section about 4" long (around the center of the barrel length) and was incredibly firecracked in front of the chamber. I was there when it was scoped and saw it with my own peepers through my gunsmith's Hawkeye. At that time 3 years ago (that's how long this BS has been going on) the only powders I was using were H-4831, Retumbo, etc.. for testing trying to find accuracy. That barrel had only 400 rounds through it. None of the slow powders were used. It would take 7 rounds before it would group, then shoot 2 good groups, then after those 12 shots go back to terrible.

As I've posted before here, it was so rough that during cleaning you could feel the patch being grabbed by the bore and actually hear it shredding. Of course WW said there was nothing wrong with that barrel either.

This barrel has about 200 down the bore and I haven't seen the inside although WW said it showed enough wear to maybe half of its life left. 200 rounds and only half left? And this from the super duper L-50 steel?



The throat was made longer so that the bullet would not take up valuable case capacity, not for "Weatherby" reasons. I was able to seat to the lands if I wanted to. Very similar to the chamber set up Stonecreek refers to.

It's an overbore as you know just as is the 7RUM I own. You want to talk about heat?

My smith uses gauge pins. It's pretty simple. If the land diameter is supposed to be .256" and you insert the proper pin and it won't fit, the bore is tighter. He says you can feel the way they fit. I guess it's just 35 years of doing it that makes the difference.

Many of those surplus powders build up a very hard fouling a few inches ahead of the chamber. I know, I've shot lots of them and they require a brush with a good bore cleaner to get them out. Pushing a patch through the barrel before brushing is sometimes near impossible. Like I said those powders are the most perfect to use, but I understand they are economical.

Notice I did not say that you didn't know the difference between a rough bore and heavy surplus powder fouling.

quote:

Notice I did not say that you didn't know the difference between a rough bore and heavy surplus powder fouling

Notice I said I actually saw the bore with a bore scope.