Understanding "barrel heat"

Bill, have shot a lot of factory rifles that consistently walked their shots after getting hot. All free floated barrels and results were consistent. Actions all properly bedded.

3 or 4 shots in the group (sporter barrels) then shots would move in some direction away from the group and increase in dispersion. Cool the barrel down and shots return to POA. Results were repeatable.

I have owned a few match barrels that maintained their round groups even after the barrel got too hot to touch. Group size did increase a bit but nothing like the factory barrels.

I consider that walking/dispersion of shots as the barrel heats up as warping. What else would you call it?

I tried the slots in stock thing and didn't see any benefit. The amount of air that circulates is not much so really more for looks then function.

Cut away forends though have given me two benefits. The first is more shots in the group before it walks. Eventually, continued shooting heats a barrel up way faster then it can cool and when it hits that 'hot' temp, it moves.

The second is that I can wrap the barrel with cold wet towels to cool it down very quickly. When shooting in 30C plus weather, heavy barrels don't cool down for a very long time.

In a normal stock, cooling one side doesn't sit too well with me. Yes, steel conducts heat and will eventually equalise but....

Simple enough to prove the benefits of a cut away forend but will cost you a stock :).

As to rigidity, some stocks will need to be reinforced after the forend sides are cut away. However, most varmint or target style stocks are wide enough and have enough material that rigidity is retained.

In my lastest project where I built up a 3" wide stock for my 7 Mystic, the cut away foreend is far more rigid then the orig Stevens (not hard to do) and equal to any target stock on the market.

Jerry
 
I'm afraid stiffness cannot be maintained by removing material in the fashion demonstrated. Reduce the depth and add flex. Increase the width substantially and you can restore stiffness.....penalty weight!

One factor often neglected in achieving a stiff stock is some mfgs start making them heavy. Virtually anyone can make a stock stiff and heavy. I find the real pros strike a balance in achieving both. Unfortunately, lightweight and stiff generally costs more $$$$

We all know how expensive stocks can get by the time the dust settles..

At the end of the day if taking a chainsaw to our rifle stock and screwing/gluing layers of plywood makes you happy and gives you the mental boost go for it. Do what you have to satisfy yourself. We only live once...
 
Well, I guess I will have to disagree on your analysis of my stock. They most certainly are stiff in the forend. Pity you can't come to the April shoot and see for yourself. Its all about a bit of engineering and proper use of materials.

You will be surprised at how strong structurally plywood is for its weight. Certainly stronger then normal glass layup (Sans alum block) and the now popular laminated stocks (What is a laminated stock anyways? - directional or lineal plywood).

You are right that the use of real high tech composites like carbon fibre and kevlar will raise costs considerably. They also produce exceptionally light items for their strength. Cool tech. Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go?

Very few composite stocks use these materials. Most composite stocks are far from light. Anyone weigh an A5 stock recently?

There are many forms of plywood. Take a trip to a lumber store. Might surprise you at how technical this product has become (look at some marine or cabinet grades). I suggest the use of good old SPRUCE plywood (construction d grade). Its the lightest, cheapest, and more then adequate strength wise for our uses.

How strong? Laminate/Glue three 1/2" thick X2 - 36" pieces together, hollow out a 1" by 6" slot (illustrate the inletting) then try and bend, twist and break it. Will take a lot of force. That same force would distort/destroy just about any commercial stock.

You are not going to flex this under any form of recoil that you can tolerate. Yep, dangerous game cannon and 50BMG capable. Remember, this is with the WEAKEST plywood.

Only downside is that it will ding quite easily if dragged across a gravel road (a layer of FGs would help). However, new exterior grade adhesives pretty much make it environmentally stable. Seal the wood (there is that layer of FG again)and it can survive in the pouring rain.

I will agree plywood doesn't endear visions of spacecraft, Mach 3 fighter jets or Formula1 cars but it does work. Is being used in Formula 1 hydrofoils if that helps.

So again, we agree to disagree. At the end of the day, fiberglass or frankenstock, they are both covered by good old spray paint. They both work. One just costs a lot more but requires no ingenuity or effort on the buyers part.

Me, I guess I am a hot rodder (or today "tuner") at heart. Why buy a mega dollar Porsche when you can blow its doors of with a hot rod for 1/4 the price?

I don't mind getting grease under my fingernails... I also know a thing or two about engineering. Oh by the way, the rifle pictured weighs 9.5lbs as pictured. Light enough????

Jerry

 
Jerry, I think you are missing what I am saying. Sorry for not being clearer. As with fluting, no you do not stiffen an object by removing material (as in cutting away material as in your photos). You can restore and increase your stock stiffness through modifications - agreed - assuming they are properly done. Taking some before and after deflection measurements is a sure fired way of gauging how your modification has worked.

I will agree ""Its all about a bit of engineering and proper use of materials."" but will emphasize the term "PROPER," and I struggle with "a bit."

Just out of curiosity are you an mechanical or structural engineer?
 
### International said:
Jerry,

Just out of curiosity are you an mechanical or structural engineer?


Jerry, any info on the question? It always good to know about these things.
 
Last edited:
mysticplayer said:
Me, I guess I am a hot rodder (or today "tuner") at heart. Why buy a mega dollar Porsche when you can blow its doors of with a hot rod for 1/4 the price?

I don't mind getting grease under my fingernails... I also know a thing or two about engineering. Oh by the way, the rifle pictured weighs 9.5lbs as pictured. Light enough????

But at the end of the day one guy is driving home in a Porsche...


Anyways, I always thought making a stock from a peice of billet aluminium would be fun, dont know if it would heat up much or not though. Or help with cooling.
But I figure it would be light, strong and stiff.
 
###,

I am a mechanical engineer and I rarely have grounds to disagree with much (if any) of what Jerry says.

I do also agree with you in that cut away will be less stiff than the equivalent cross sectional area if its deeper (vertically) assuming the same material. But I believe that Jerry's point is that as long as its stiff enough to do the job any extra isn't necessary and is in fact wasted. (i.e. Poor engineering).

They built some really great airplanes from plywood. Ever hear of the Mosquito bombers? Rolls Royce Merlin engines, they were hell on wings in WWII.


Jeff00, aluminum is much more thermally conductive than Stainless steel. Its light and stiff for its weight compared to most other metals, but is still heavier than composites made of wood, CF, kevlar, GRP, etc when it comes to strength and stiffness to weight ratios.

It'll be cheaper than CF but more expensive than wood composites.
 
Rapt - not sure what you point is but I think Jerry has missed the point. Thats okay since he is entitled to his opinion, but if there are errors in the theory we should talk about them to avoid confusion.

There is enough misleading information out there.

We could debate "what is stiff enough"..... but thats not what we were talking about.

Jeff - McMillan and HS Precision differ on their opinions/findings with Alum. verses Fiberglass. The al. stock does conduct heat very well, but since it doesn't normally touch the barrel it will take some time for the heat to move from the barrel to the receiver to the stock. Skeletonized alum. stocks are not that uncommon. 1000 yd br guys are using them as well. IF you have the materials and knowledge why not experiment! For most of us its do we have time....well at least for myself...
 
mysticplayer said:
However, most varmint or target style stocks are wide enough and have enough material that rigidity is retained.
Jerry


I know we can get carried away in detail, but this statement is clearly wrong!

Rigidity is not retained by removing material as done in the Jerry's cutting modification.

You can alter rigidity by widening the stock. In general, the increased width should extend past the front receiver ring to get the best results in restoring or improving stiffness.
 
Rapt said:
Jeff00, aluminum is much more thermally conductive than Stainless steel. Its light and stiff for its weight compared to most other metals, but is still heavier than composites made of wood, CF, kevlar, GRP, etc when it comes to strength and stiffness to weight ratios.

It'll be cheaper than CF but more expensive than wood composites.



### International said:
Jeff - McMillan and HS Precision differ on their opinions/findings with Alum. verses Fiberglass. The al. stock does conduct heat very well, but since it doesn't normally touch the barrel it will take some time for the heat to move from the barrel to the receiver to the stock. Skeletonized alum. stocks are not that uncommon. 1000 yd br guys are using them as well. IF you have the materials and knowledge why not experiment! For most of us its do we have time....well at least for myself...


Hmm I guess I could always try, its easy enough for me to put a stock that I like and a block of al into the cnc and let it go to town.

I figured it would be strong enough for sure, fairly light, and help keep the heat out.
Never really thought about hte fact that it doesnt touch the barrel enough for it to really do much though.

And making it lighter without weaker shouldnt be too hard either.

I was kinda worried it would get hot when holding it.
 
Jeff000 said:
I was kinda worried it would get hot when holding it.


Good point, I was thinking about heat transfer while holding it. I don't think it would really make much difference.

do you do alot of AL CNC work? Which materials do you normally stock/work on? As I drift off topic...
 
### International said:
Good point, I was thinking about heat transfer while holding it. I don't think it would really make much difference.

do you do alot of AL CNC work? Which materials do you normally stock/work on? As I drift off topic...

Not much, I got out of that stuff about a year ago for an accounting job. But I know the owner of the shop so I can use it off hours as long as its not something thats hard on the equipment i'll bring a case of beer in on a friday and get it done :)
I can do alot though, but not a barrel, well I just wouldnt be able to put the rilfing into it. hmm and actually I dont know if I could bore the hole either, dont think he has the tooling for it.
 
Jeff000 - accounting.....:eek: an engineer's nightmare field.... kidding of course.


Jerry.....I see your posting on other subjects and are chosing not to clarify your post. Oh well, your call I guess. Silence also speaks volumes.....
 
albert said:
what in the the hell does a stock have to do with stress on the barrell?


Hi Albert....Well I believe we moved into the stock area to discuss uniform cooling of the barrel. The issue dealt with thermal stress in the barrel due to the shielding the forearm (I.E. irregular temps in the barrel). All of this was of course in reference to fully free floated barrels.....
 
Back
Top Bottom