I need to see more data.

I was looking at this PXT deal today actually. I am with dave. the whole carbon deal IMO is dumb, your adding an additional material that expands or contracts at a different rate. you're adding machining to a barrel and hoping the additional material matches up. why don't bench rest shooters use carbon barrels?! If it works so awesome those guys will ditch all their barrels for carbon. Then there is the whole deal with use of the rifle and its weight, a good heavy sporter barrel should shoot to the accuracy requirement that could be needed in any application I can imagine. heck a factory tikka probably would do it too with handloads. twist deal sounds interesting. They make the claim that bullets slip in the twist initially. They are doing a mild twist the first couple inches then ramping it.

I am sorta skeptical because of their lean toward the tactical crowd. the tactical crowd thinks they invented rifles and handloading. This is where the time and money is spent. I want it to be on laser fast varmint cartridges, but alas not many people buy them. instead its fast twist and heavy bullets.
 
steve garrett said:
I was looking at this PXT deal today actually. I am with dave. the whole carbon deal IMO is dumb, your adding an additional material that expands or contracts at a different rate. you're adding machining to a barrel and hoping the additional material matches up. why don't bench rest shooters use carbon barrels?! If it works so awesome those guys will ditch all their barrels for carbon. Then there is the whole deal with use of the rifle and its weight, a good heavy sporter barrel should shoot to the accuracy requirement that could be needed in any application I can imagine. heck a factory tikka probably would do it too with handloads. twist deal sounds interesting. They make the claim that bullets slip in the twist initially. They are doing a mild twist the first couple inches then ramping it.

I am sorta skeptical because of their lean toward the tactical crowd. the tactical crowd thinks they invented rifles and handloading. This is where the time and money is spent. I want it to be on laser fast varmint cartridges, but alas not many people buy them. instead its fast twist and heavy bullets.
Click to expand...
I can't speak to all of your points but in bench guns weight is an asset so unless someone makes something real special in carbon you will likely never see a carbon BR rig

As someone who wants a carbon barrel I can explain some of my reasons for wanting it.
Weight. Its not a big deal until you kill 4 coyotes and are trying to drag guns and calls and coyotes all at once
Profile. The gun I want to build takes a chassis that is designed around a heavy profile barrel and sticking a standard sporter barrel in it looks goofy as all get out. I have run into this issue with a bunch of stocks and chassis I like.
 
Most BR shooters are very weight conscious. The LV and HV shooters that have weight limits are for sure. If they could get equal accuracy out of a lighter barrel, they'd happily spend that weight on other components. Heavier scopes would be very attractive. Heavier, lower CG, stiffer stocks would be very attractive. Heavier, stiffer actions would be very attractive. The reason those components are built into their rifles to a weight spec, is they aren't willing to give up the accuracy afforded by the heavy barrels. If they could lop actual pounds off barrels and not lose accuracy, they sure as heck would.

- DAA
 
Yotarunner said:
I can't speak to all of your points but in bench guns weight is an asset so unless someone makes something real special in carbon you will likely never see a carbon BR rig

As someone who wants a carbon barrel I can explain some of my reasons for wanting it.
Weight. Its not a big deal until you kill 4 coyotes and are trying to drag guns and calls and coyotes all at once
Profile. The gun I want to build takes a chassis that is designed around a heavy profile barrel and sticking a standard sporter barrel in it looks goofy as all get out. I have run into this issue with a bunch of stocks and chassis I like.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying but for a calling rifle, a heavy sporter barrel is plenty good and will be overkill on accuracy for what you can even use in a coyote calling situation. I scratch my head as to what the whole purpose of the carbon deal is. I don't think they even claim its more accurate than a barrel of equal contour. in my view its for looks. which I am ok with too.

the chassis deal, I don't see the point of either. but thats me and probably is adding a bunch of weight for you. give me a remington classic in a mickey mcswirley stock. OR the game scout of the game warden in mcswirley. bed that baby in some marine tex, I am good to go.
 
I can't say or agree that Proof has a radical new idea on their offered twist, or rather marketing claim.

H.M. Pope did gain twist (and rounded the corners of the rifling) Long Long time ago Circa early 1900's.
Bartlein still will twist in a gain , although I think they use the term "progressive" twist and has for years offered the 5R which is actually a offset radiused land groove configuration. Pretty sure they offer carbon fiber as well, long before Proof's claims. As well as other barrel makers.
Others have been offering polygonal rifling, rounded corners in the past, with the same claim.
Carbon fiber barrels aren't new, maybe they (Proof) improved the process?? IDK. Maybe the Novel concept they claim is lying in the combination of all the above?

Maybe the novel faddish thing is to combine all of them, and market as great development. Doesn't mean it not a good barrel. Even the crapist barrel maker can occasionally make a great barrel. As well as vice versa. No intent to discount their claims, like the OP stated I'm skeptical.


Added :
Look Bartlein has a carbon fiber gain twist 6mm barrel on hand not necessarily a round corner land groove but I'm positive they would do it in a 5R or a rounded land groove.

 
Last edited:
steve garrett said:
I get what you're saying but for a calling rifle, a heavy sporter barrel is plenty good and will be overkill on accuracy for what you can even use in a coyote calling situation. I scratch my head as to what the whole purpose of the carbon deal is. I don't think they even claim its more accurate than a barrel of equal contour. in my view its for looks. which I am ok with too.

the chassis deal, I don't see the point of either. but thats me and probably is adding a bunch of weight for you. give me a remington classic in a mickey mcswirley stock. OR the game scout of the game warden in mcswirley. bed that baby in some marine tex, I am good to go.
Click to expand...
With an XLR chassis and a carbon barrel I can replicate the same weight of my Tikka t3 sporter barrels while maintaining a heavy contour barrel and a chassis that I can tailor to fit me perfectly. I can shoot conventional stocks just fine but after having an adjustable chassis style target gun I have to concede to the fact that when properly setup the chassis feels better to shoot both for accuracy and ability to get on target fast.
 
So.... all of a sudden there are "twisting forces on the shooter" and a host of other problems that are now solved. OK.... "Giant leap forward that has completely redefined barrel technology" It would be more believable if they cut back on the hyperbole. Time will tell.
 
Back
Top