"bull" or heavy barrel vs. "normal " size barrel question....

B

bigdummy30

Member
i don't really care as i like the look ,and typically the feel , of heavy barreled guns but i keep hearing the the temperature debate between the 2 .I hear that a heavy barreled guns dissipates the heat faster/better but to me it just seems like you would feel the heat later which would lead you to believe that its cooler. Im thinking that the inside of both barrels heat up at the same exact rate but you feel is quicker on thin barreled guns which would make it seem like its hotter,quicker....which also SEEMS like it would cool quicker....so ,does...

thin barrel = quicker heat up but quicker cool down or
heavy barrel = more surface area and cooler cool down or
heavy barrel = slower "felt " heat and slower cool down

not really interested in preferences,just seeing if anybody has any facts towards either argument...
 
While not instant, most barrel metals conduct heat fairly quickly. If you really want, you can look up the heat conductivities. Therefore, more surface area equates faster cool down. The thing to be weary of is that when you are shooting a big barrel, there is more metal to store heat in. So, I tend to keep pulling the trigger on those sage poodles rather than taking a quick break. Once you have overheated a large chunk of metal, even though it can shed more j/s due to its larger surface area, the fact remains that you added more joules of energy to it to start with. It will still take a while to cool down.
John
 
Well a heavy barrel will heat up slower, simply because there is more steal to heat up.

I'm not sure that it cools down any faster, since two barrels of different sizes, will have proportionally the same surface area. Or to say it different, a 1/2 inch barrel, will have 1/2 of the surface area that a 1 inch barrel will. And also have to dissipate 1/2 the heat, assuming they are the same temp.

Now I suppose the real question is, does it make a difference? How fast is the heat built up on the inside surface of the barrel dissipated to the outer parts. In a rapid fire situation is it fast enough to make a heavy barrel any better, or do the two have roughly the same temps on the inside?
 
If you fire at the same rate the amount of heat is the same. The larger barrel both conducts heat away from the bore better because it is a larger sink and has more surface area to radiate the heat to atmosphere.

For extreme rapid fire bore temp is not very dependent on barrel size at all. But that only applies when "ripping off 30 round mags."

Jack
 
The problem comes when you shoot a number of consecutive shots from the rifle. as the barrel heats up a thin barrel will lose its rigidity and therefore its consistantancy faster than a bull barrel. you will maintain a smaller group size with a heavier barrel through more rounds as there is more metal to heat.

take your gun out and see how many consecutive shots it takes for your groups to start opening up. some guns may only take 5 rounds before groups open; others may take 20. but all guns will have accuracy problems as the barrel is heated to that guns limit. it really isnt a matter of which conducts heat its a matter of which can sustain rigidity while the temp is increased.
 
Nightcaller is right but so is pcammo. Barrel heat matters how it applies to what you are doing. Thin lightweight barrels walk for another reason, stress. This is one of the reasons that the old Springfield 1903 shot so well. Prior to WWII they had cut rifled barrels which inherently have less stress. Heavier barrels definately take longer to cool because there is more mass. Heavy barrels will fool you in regards to heat too because where the heat you are concerned with, the area just ahead of the chamber is well or better insulated so it will "feel" only warm when the bore is actually much hotter. Accuracy is one reason to be concerned with heat but barrel wear/throat erosion is another. If you dont shoot too much too often even the known acknowledged barrel burners are not that bad, but even the popular 243 will smoke a barrel in a few hundred rounds if they are fired in one or two sessions. Having burned up more barrels than most shooters I have found that the amount of powder/case size vs. bore diameter has more to do with barrel burning than sheer velocity like many people believe.
 
I just got a Savage .204 this week, with a 22" sporter weight barrel. Last night, I had it at a friend's and brought it in to measure the muzzle with a dial caliper. It was .552". If you take that minus .204, you get a .174 barrel wall thickness at the muzzle. I then measured his 110 in .270Win. That one has a 20" barrel and measured .582" at the muzzle (most likely exactly the same profile, but 2" shorter = .030 larger diameter). So if you take .270 from that, you have a .156" barrel wall thickness at the muzzle.

Would it hold true that the sporter weight barrel in a smaller caliber may be more rigid, because there's more metal left in the barrel? I have a suspicion that a sporter weight barrel may remain more useful when chambered in small calibers. What do you guys think?
 
Back
Top