Anyone running a Proof Research barrel?

[Whiterabbit]

well, 1 MOA over 20 shots at 1000 yards is a great start as a definition for an accuracy requirement. The question then becomes, do you believe that is achievable with less barrel than a medium palma? In the best of cases, a medium palma is about 4.5 lb. it goes up from there, about 7lb until the barrel lengths get crazy like 32 inches long or the contour gets basically to a 1.25 cylinder.

The Proof research CF barrel is about 2.5lb, but if it can't hold 20 shots on a 12" plate at 1000 yards, then it wouldn't meet the accuracy requirement anyways.




------------------------------------

Here's a dumb question. Do you guys suppose the PRS competition guys don;t run the CF barrels not because they are not accurate, but because they burn through barrels as a consumable, do not have weight requirements (or require heavy weights), and the CF barrel is $950 for a prefit compared to what bartlein charges?

Because it's easy to imagine an even better barrel out there, imagine twice as good as what's currently out there, but if the company charged $5,000 per barrel, noone on the PRS circuit would use them either (maybe one rep) due to cost.

[justjosh]

I should have been more specific
The barrel I run is stainless 24" and has a slight taper from 1" at the action to .830 at the muzzle. Its a good drop in option imo for the RPR and has worked for me

I agree with you on the CF barrel, very cool, owned one and have shot a few but personally not for me in a long range application.

[sigstroker]

Here's a dumb question. Do you guys suppose the PRS competition guys don;t run the CF barrels not because they are not accurate, but because they burn through barrels as a consumable, do not have weight requirements (or require heavy weights), and the CF barrel is $950 for a prefit compared to what bartlein charges?

Because it's easy to imagine an even better barrel out there, imagine twice as good as what's currently out there, but if the company charged $5,000 per barrel, noone on the PRS circuit would use them either (maybe one rep) due to cost.

I don't know, but if I had to guess, I would say you're right. It's the cost.

Weight does matter because they have to hump that thing over the stages. It's also a matter of balance, being that they have to deal with barricades, roof peaks, and all that. If the gun is too butt-heavy it could make it harder to handle the rifle in all those awkward positions.

In a Brownell's advertising magazine they do a gas gun build using a Proof Research barrel. I don't know if it's just to sell PR barrels or because that makes for a good performer. Nothing affects the weight or balance of an AR more than the barrel, so they don't usually make random choices with barrels.

[bsumoba]

If a barrel would allow me to win 80-90% of the time and cost 3 times as much, I would buy it.

But, it's a hypothetical and we all know there is no such thing.

[ar15barrels]

If a barrel would allow me to win 80-90% of the time and cost 3 times as much, I would buy it.

Gear whore.

[bsumoba]

Gear whore.

LOL...

I think everyone is doing that already. They buy a Bartlein or Brux or Krieger barrel because they tend to be higher quality and produce better groups.

People buy Jewell or Bix N andy triggers because they allow the shooter to break off better shots.

We are all gear whorees at some point.

[Whiterabbit]

Your point is clear, but I think other people will not be able ti distinguish the difference between the claim of halving group size and winning 80-90% of the time, and therefore think we were talking apples to apples.

I think that's why I was trying to talk in terms of numerical accuracy requirements. Because if the all-steel barrel holds, say, 0.8 MOA across 50 rounds in "PRS-Type" shooting, and the carbon barrel holds, say, 1.2 MOA equivalent, Maybe that's good enough for me, even though it's a huge advantage to go all-steel.

And might explain why the PRS shooters go for non carbon barrels.

Maybe.

If the numbers were, say, 0.4 MOA and 0.8 MOA for the barrels, then the steel barrels still hold a huge advantage, but now there's even more attraction for me to run a carbon barrel, even though (were these ficticious numbers real) everything that's been said about carbon being inferior to steel would be 100% true. But for me, the carbon barrel would be "good enough".

Frankly, I still don;t know if the carbon barrel would be "good enough" for me. I still only see single-groups shot from carbon barrels, and the claims of competitors that the steel barrels fundamentally must be better.

Might be true, but moot. But I can't prove it without spending $1000...

[Whiterabbit]

If I wanted to prove it to myself, think I can get $1000 (adder) out of an RPR if I bought a drop-in carbon barrel, shot 100 rounds out of it, then sold the rifle? Wouldn;t be practical if a proof barrel turned a $700 gun into a $1200 gun instead of a $1700 gun...

[kendog4570]

...Might be true, but moot. But I can't prove it without spending $1000...

Trick barrels (anyone remember Black Star??) and trick processes (moly coating??) usually turn into a cash wash or worse when the costs/round counts/etc are compared to simply replacing a "normal" carbon or stainless steel barrel when they are shot out.
I have installed PR barrels, and their workmanship and finish are among the best, but I cannot see 3 times better.

[sigstroker]

I think that's why I was trying to talk in terms of numerical accuracy requirements. Because if the all-steel barrel holds, say, 0.8 MOA across 50 rounds in "PRS-Type" shooting, and the carbon barrel holds, say, 1.2 MOA equivalent, Maybe that's good enough for me, even though it's a huge advantage to go all-steel.

And might explain why the PRS shooters go for non carbon barrels.

If they really did 1.2 moa, that could be problematic. PRS guns are supposed to do 1 moa at worst. I don't know if they actually pass a test, but 1 moa is in the rulebook.

If I wanted to prove it to myself, think I can get $1000 (adder) out of an RPR if I bought a drop-in carbon barrel, shot 100 rounds out of it, then sold the rifle? Wouldn;t be practical if a proof barrel turned a $700 gun into a $1200 gun instead of a $1700 gun...

The typical RPR buyer is not the type to want to spend big bucks on a fancy barrel, so I think you'd be hard pressed to get much of your money out of it.

[Whiterabbit]

Trick barrels (anyone remember Black Star??) and trick processes (moly coating??) usually turn into a cash wash or worse when the costs/round counts/etc are compared to simply replacing a "normal" carbon or stainless steel barrel when they are shot out.
I have installed PR barrels, and their workmanship and finish are among the best, but I cannot see 3 times better.

Ken!

I hear you 100% loud and clear.

But I gave HBn a shot (again, noone had data, but it was only $40 to play). Gimmick you say, maybe. Like Moly. But I have data that shows marginal improvement. It's not much, but its very, very consistent. zero of my HBN data is worse than non HBN, even though the improvement is tiny.

So I shoot HBN for target now. Because I can justify it with data.

-----------

[Whiterabbit]

The typical RPR buyer is not the type to want to spend big bucks on a fancy barrel, so I think you'd be hard pressed to get much of your money out of it.

10-4 on this one.

[bsumoba]

If they really did 1.2 moa, that could be problematic. PRS guns are supposed to do 1 moa at worst.

I think if a PRS shooter had even a 1/2 MOA gun (meaning it can shoot consistent 1/2 MOA groups at 100 yards for example), they would not be happy with that. Most guys I know that shoot competitive PRS style matches want guns to shoot in the 1/4"-3/8" range at 100 yards. And...most guns are doing better than that in reality (big, 1-hole groups). Anything more than that and it makes it even harder for them to hit targets since many of the shots are offhand or in some sort of non-ideal shooting position.

The typical RPR buyer is not the type to want to spend big bucks on a fancy barrel, so I think you'd be hard pressed to get much of your money out of it.

I agree. Many guys start off with the budget platforms and want to upgrade to something better, or is perceived to be better.

The best thing a RPR owner can do to improve their rifle is an upgraded trigger and a new barrel. Next would be a scope. Aside from the gun, the next thing they can do is learn how to properly develop a load and make good, consistent ammo. Other than that, the other things on the gun are more "nice-to-have" and will not necessarily contribute to a better shooting gun.

As I have come to learn, the thing that generally matters most when it comes to accuracy is a good barrel. What I have come to learn from the CF barrels is there is no advantage to them unless you are looking to make a lightweight hunting rifle.

[sigstroker]

The RPR owners I've talked to are already getting well under 1 moa, so are reluctant to spend big money chasing another .25 moa. If they need a new barrel anyway it might be a different story, but even then it would take more than a new barrel and trigger to make an RPR into a super tack-driver. Otherwise everyone would be shooting RPR's.

[Whiterabbit]

no advantage, fine, but what noone suggests is whether or not there is a disadvantage if 1 MOA is the accuracy standard, hot.

I hear you guys loud and clear if you guys want a consistent 1/2 MOA. That's way out of my league anyways. And I'm fine with that.

Like I said, if you compare the PR CF barrel to a fancy PRS barrel and in one situation the facy PRS barrel is 3/8 MOA from round 15-20, and the CF barrel is 1 MOA from round 15 to 20, that's a HUGE degradation in performance, no doubt about it. Almost 3x worse!

But for my shooting, I could live with that. The current rifle I shoot has shown accuracy in the .4 to .5, but a much better average is .866, meaning some groups are clearly higher than that. And these are 10 round groups, hot, cold, morning, noon, afternoon. (minus straight up cold bore). So if the CF barrel could do average .866, then that's lovely to me, even if it's a tomato stake to a PRS shooter, much less BR. That's why qualitative measures like no PRS shooter using them is just not good enough, or quantitative measures like 3-5 shots on target without getting the barrel hot, or not comparing cold to hot barrel.