Barrel Rifling

[Mysticprecision]

I believe Whitworth was making 5 sided polygonal cannons at the time of the american civil war.

He also created bullets that were multi sided so a muzzle loader would form that slug as the bullet was seated. Sounds like it would be a perfect solution to sealing and fouling. I guess from what we currently use... it didn't do so good in the heat of battle.... nor competition.

There is SO much innovation hidden in the real experimenters of small arms history... from the Enfield arsenal, Lake City.. even the Swiss. Grumpy old gunsmiths whittling up crazy ideas. Very brave (albeit naive) reloaders turning dials way past sane.

If you want to see what cartridge development looks like, find old reloading books and reloading manuals from post WWII to the 1990's

Nothing new

Optics on the other hand... we live in a very special time.

Jerry

 

[Leeper]

Shilen made their Polygonal barrel (DGA) in the late seventies. A good one would shoot reasonably well but not to BR standards. Their ratchet rifling was a modified version of the DGA polygon. Dimensionally, it was more conventional and was easier to work with. The RR barrels were capable of BR accuracy. I have seen polygon barrels which shot quite well but have never seen one which would shoot consistently at BR levels (by the way, I consider BR accuracy to be under .2moa, consistently). I've seen all kinds of 1/2 moa polygon barrels but not any better. I am also not a fan of 5R barrels. There can be problems with reamer deflection, especially when throating separately.

 

[remington jim]

Shilen made their Polygonal barrel (DGA) in the late seventies. A good one would shoot reasonably well but not to BR standards. Their ratchet rifling was a modified version of the DGA polygon. Dimensionally, it was more conventional and was easier to work with. The RR barrels were capable of BR accuracy. I have seen polygon barrels which shot quite well but have never seen one which would shoot consistently at BR levels (by the way, I consider BR accuracy to be under .2moa, consistently). I've seen all kinds of 1/2 moa polygon barrels but not any better. I am also not a fan of 5R barrels. There can be problems with reamer deflection, especially when throating separately.

Thanks interesting I’m gonna call Pac Nor and have a chat with them . They have a lot of new machinery after there big fire a few years back . I’m interested in one for my FTR rifle in 308 Win with a 10 twist for Berger 200.20 X bullets .

 

[Leeper]

Thanks interesting I’m gonna call Pac Nor and have a chat with them . They have a lot of new machinery after there big fire a few years back . I’m interested in one for my FTR rifle in 308 Win with a 10 twist for Berger 200.20 X bullets .

In general, I would say, if you are unsatisfied with the performance of a conventional six groove barrel, you should absolutely try some sort of polygon rifling. If nothing else, your competitors might appreciate it. Of course, I may be out of touch with current reality!

 

[remington jim]

In general, I would say, if you are unsatisfied with the performance of a conventional six groove barrel, you should absolutely try some sort of polygon rifling. If nothing else, your competitors might appreciate it. Of course, I may be out of touch with current reality!

NOT at all unhappy with any of my conventional 3-4-5-6 groove barrels ! Just was reading about poly barrels and thinking there might be some benefits to shooting them as some manufacturers think - say there is . I am surprised if there is those benefits WHY more barrel manufactures DONT manufacture using this process? . So I asked the question on here and nobody knows SH*T about them ! So I will go to a barrel manufacture who actually makes poly and conventional rifles barrels and see what there thoughts are ?

It’s like this Bill Why keep shooting an obsolete cartridge like a 260 REM when there’s a 6.5 CREEDMOOR beating you !

 

[iron cat]

It’s like this Bill Why keep shooting an obsolete cartridge like a 260 REM when there’s a 6.5 CREEDMOOR beating you !

In that case I don't think I would be looking at the cartridge as the problem!
Cat

 

[old303]

Have to also wonder about the quality and wear level of the tooling involved. Comparing a precisely cut barrel to one from a worn-out machine is going to favour the first regardless of rifling profile.

 

[remington jim]

Have to also wonder about the quality and wear level of the tooling involved. Comparing a precisely cut barrel to one from a worn-out machine is going to favour the first regardless of rifling profile.

What makes you think they would and why make there barrels from a WORN OUT machine ? Are you speaking in general or about a particular company such as PAC Nor ?
Or do you know something more than others on here ?

 

[Sniffer]

Have to also wonder about the quality and wear level of the tooling involved. Comparing a precisely cut barrel to one from a worn-out machine is going to favour the first regardless of rifling profile.

That kinda goes without saying.

Garbage in = garbage out immaterial of the process or product. Even a superior design could be negated by poor quality.

 

[old303]

What makes you think they would and why make there barrels from a WORN OUT machine ? Are you speaking in general or about a particular company such as PAC Nor ?
Or do you know something more than others on here ?

General comment, not based on any specific barrel maker.

 

[Leeper]

Polygon, or polygon type rifling, seems to work very well with a patched round ball, and pretty well with cast bullets. But honestly, it's not that wonderful with jacketed bullets. I have tried the previously mentioned Shilen barrels and H-K barrels. I have not seen one which would consistently shoot much better than 1/2 minute. I don't mind barrels with rounded lands which behave more like conventional rifling (this describes the Shilen ratchet rifling pretty well), but I don't care for the polygon barrels which distort the jacket too much.
And hey, eff a bunch of 260's. I could beat them with a 303!