Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 7/13/2005 5:53:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 7:44:03 AM EDT by dennysguns]
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 5:59:36 AM EDT
Wow, cool.you would have to figure with continues full auto fire the heat played a bigger factor in falure then it would in normal firing cooling firing situations, they probably would have went alot farther.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:01:31 AM EDT
I read somewhere that a bbl could only go like 3 or 4 hundred somodd round straight full auto mag dumps until it blew... Does this debunk that?
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:03:03 AM EDT
Hey, thanks for sharing, cool pics. Now I have not tried it, but my understanding is that you can pop a barrel with way less then 1,000 rounds. There must have been long cool down periods during this testing, like say overnight?
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:04:34 AM EDT
Were these barrels chrome lined?
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:04:57 AM EDT
Note to self, use HBARS when shooting 21,000 rounds on full auto.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:11:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 7:47:11 AM EDT by dennysguns]
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:21:28 AM EDT
How dangerous was the test? Did any shooter or bystander get injured?
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:23:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:23:33 AM EDT
Some people have really cool jobs!

Spooky
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:25:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:25:25 AM EDT



very impressive.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:26:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 6:28:33 AM EDT by G-CODE]
But what about THIS?

BTW: Cool pics

ETA: It seems the definition of "continuous" needs redefined.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:29:32 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:29:57 AM EDT



I'll volunteer my trigger finger for a couple thousand rounds on full auto.

I've never seen this kind of testing done. How were these rifles fed? I can't imagine someone swapping mags every 30 rounds.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:32:34 AM EDT
Hay, those FSBs have bayonet lugs on them? I could use those.


Damn, I love destructive testing and its results.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:34:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 6:37:43 AM EDT by Dace]

There Their test procedure was pretty simple........


So it looks like the barrels heated up, bent, and the round then KB the barrel because it could not exit.

Where these chrome lined? Would that even matter?
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:36:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 6:44:06 AM EDT by Aimless]
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:36:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 7:49:09 AM EDT by dennysguns]
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:38:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dennysguns:
Any body need some slightly used front sights

Denny

Denny



Send 'em.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:40:02 AM EDT
In the Government test more then 500 round were fired in less then 4 minutes to get the M4A1 barrels to blow. That is a firing rate exceeding 125 rounds per minute. To reach 125 rounds a minute you have to change 30 round mags every 15 seconds.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:40:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 6:42:37 AM EDT by Feedingcannibal]

Originally Posted By G-CODE:
But what about THIS?

BTW: Cool pics

ETA: It seems the definition of "continuous" needs redefined.




The M4 rifles tested in that link deconstructed at ~590 rounds of continuous full-auto fire. Testing done by Rock Island Arsenal in 1996.

Interesting comparison of tests, to say the least.





Notice the points of failure both on this test and on Denny's. This lead to the development of the M4 SOCOM barrel.


.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:40:49 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:49:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:50:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ekie:
In the Government test more then 500 round were fired in less then 4 minutes to get the M4A1 barrels to blow. That is a firing rate exceeding 125 rounds per minute. To reach 125 rounds a minute you have to change 30 round mags every 15 seconds.



That would be "CONTINUOUS" fire. So in reality, this "non-test" doesn't "debunk" any myth. It just starts a new one. A myth that says " My cheapo DPMS M-4 barrel will last around 20k in continuous full auto fire". Which is not true.



Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:56:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By G-CODE:

Originally Posted By Ekie:
In the Government test more then 500 round were fired in less then 4 minutes to get the M4A1 barrels to blow. That is a firing rate exceeding 125 rounds per minute. To reach 125 rounds a minute you have to change 30 round mags every 15 seconds.



That would be "CONTINUOUS" fire. So in reality, this "non-test" doesn't "debunk" any myth. It just starts a new one. A myth that says " My cheapo DPMS M-4 barrel will last around 20k in continuous full auto fire". Which is not true.






I dont think it starts a myth. It in a way demonstrates the life of a barrel. If those barrels under those conditions did not KB until 20,00 rounds, the barrel life of an average plinker/range rifle will outlast any shooters life.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:56:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:
Link to the Colt Article: www.galleryofguns.com/shootingtimes/Articles/DisplayArticles.asp?ID=1205

Thanks for the pics Denny, pretty neat.



That was a pretty cool test, 10,000 rounds. And yes the throat was damaged, and the bore was not chromed, and the barrel was a 1/9. What was it, last year Winchester did some testing on the 223 WSSM and found that a chromed bore doubled barrel life?

There was also a military test conducted in the 1980's that showed the 1/7 twist barrel lost accuracy rapidly, like at 6,000 rounds, while the 1/12 barrels were more accurate at something like 20,000 rounds then they were at the start of the test (all memory here).
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:56:48 AM EDT
Where is MarkM with a comment how the barrels failed because they are 1:9 tiwst and a 1:7 twist would not have failed?
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:58:25 AM EDT
FeedingCannibal wrote: "Notice the points of failure both on this test and on Denny's. This lead to the development of the M4 SOCOM barrel."

Feeding, this is somewhat tangential, but are you saying there's a difference between the "regular" M4 carbine barrel and this "M4 SOCOM" barrel that you mention?

Could you please give me more info about the M4 SOCOM barrel? Do you have detailed specs on it? Pictures? Links? Thanks.

John
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 6:59:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 7:03:50 AM EDT by lt557]

Originally Posted By Ekie:
In the Government test more then 500 round were fired in less then 4 minutes to get the M4A1 barrels to blow. That is a firing rate exceeding 125 rounds per minute. To reach 125 rounds a minute you have to change 30 round mags every 15 seconds.



Do you always believe what the Government tells you?
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:02:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ekie:
In the Government test more then 500 round were fired in less then 4 minutes to get the M4A1 barrels to blow. That is a firing rate exceeding 125 rounds per minute. To reach 125 rounds a minute you have to change 30 round mags every 15 seconds.



Just read the testing method, mags were changed about every 10 seconds.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:02:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 7:06:18 AM EDT by Variablebinary]

Originally Posted By Grendelizor:
FeedingCannibal wrote: "Notice the points of failure both on this test and on Denny's. This lead to the development of the M4 SOCOM barrel."

Feeding, this is somewhat tangential, but are you saying there's a difference between the "regular" M4 carbine barrel and this "M4 SOCOM" barrel that you mention?

Could you please give me more info about the M4 SOCOM barrel? Do you have detailed specs on it? Pictures? Links? Thanks.

John



I could be wrong, but I think the SOCOM barrel is an HBAR, making it much more rugged than the profiled barrel. Here is a pic of some used SOCOM barrels

Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:03:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By lt557:

Originally Posted By Ekie:
In the Government test more then 500 round were fired in less then 4 minutes to get the M4A1 barrels to blow. That is a firing rate exceeding 125 rounds per minute. To reach 125 rounds a minute you have to change 30 round mags every 15 seconds.



Do you always believe what the Govnment tells you?



No, this is the SHOW ME STATE.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:04:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By Grendelizor:
FeedingCannibal wrote: "Notice the points of failure both on this test and on Denny's. This lead to the development of the M4 SOCOM barrel."

Feeding, this is somewhat tangential, but are you saying there's a difference between the "regular" M4 carbine barrel and this "M4 SOCOM" barrel that you mention?

Could you please give me more info about the M4 SOCOM barrel? Do you have detailed specs on it? Pictures? Links? Thanks.

John



I could be wrong, but I think the SOCOM barrel is an HBAR, making it much more rugged than the profiled barrel



Not sure it should be called a HBAR, but the now standard M4A1 barrel is much larger in diameter under the guards.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:07:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ekie:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By Grendelizor:
FeedingCannibal wrote: "Notice the points of failure both on this test and on Denny's. This lead to the development of the M4 SOCOM barrel."

Feeding, this is somewhat tangential, but are you saying there's a difference between the "regular" M4 carbine barrel and this "M4 SOCOM" barrel that you mention?

Could you please give me more info about the M4 SOCOM barrel? Do you have detailed specs on it? Pictures? Links? Thanks.

John



I could be wrong, but I think the SOCOM barrel is an HBAR, making it much more rugged than the profiled barrel



Not sure it should be called a HBAR, but the now standard M4A1 barrel is much larger in diameter under the guards.



A HBAR in the civilian world is different from a SOCOM barrel.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:10:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:10:57 AM EDT
When I went out shootin last Sunday, my dad tagged along cuz hed never shot anything like an AR. He accidentally grabbed the barrel and burned his hand. He was saying the barrel was getting too hot and that we should stop shooting it for a while. at that point wed only put about 100 rounds through it over the course of 30 minutes. I guess there wasnt much to worry about >=)
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:14:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:14:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Ekie:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By Grendelizor:
FeedingCannibal wrote: "Notice the points of failure both on this test and on Denny's. This lead to the development of the M4 SOCOM barrel."

Feeding, this is somewhat tangential, but are you saying there's a difference between the "regular" M4 carbine barrel and this "M4 SOCOM" barrel that you mention?

Could you please give me more info about the M4 SOCOM barrel? Do you have detailed specs on it? Pictures? Links? Thanks.

John



I could be wrong, but I think the SOCOM barrel is an HBAR, making it much more rugged than the profiled barrel



Not sure it should be called a HBAR, but the now standard M4A1 barrel is much larger in diameter under the guards.



A HBAR in the civilian world is different from a SOCOM barrel.



Agreed.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:17:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 10:09:31 AM EDT by Bartholomew_Roberts]
.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:17:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 7:18:26 AM EDT by Bartholomew_Roberts]
double tap
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:18:25 AM EDT
That's some crazy Bump Firing and such, CLEATUS!
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:20:56 AM EDT
Wow, thanks.

How did the gas tubes hold up?
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 7:23:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 9:50:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:
Were those bad boys chrome lined?

Anybody remember that link to one of the articles from one of the gunrags? I think it's on Davidsons-they claimed that a Colt barrel was having problems after, I think, 10k rounds of semi automatic fire over a day or two. I always thought that seemed kind of low.

The Army report linked to above indicates that two military M4 barrels both failed after less than 600 rounds of continuous full auto fire.



according to some here impossible..colt is perfect.


eta sorry just a little cranky today
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 9:52:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:

Anybody remember that link to one of the articles from one of the gunrags? I think it's on Davidsons-they claimed that a Colt barrel was having problems after, I think, 10k rounds of semi automatic fire over a day or two. I always thought that seemed kind of low.


1)It was an unlined Match H-Bar

2)They were cooking it pretty good, 10,000 rounds in one day.



It was 10,000rds over two days (still a pretty heavy firing schedule) and the issue was the throat of the barrel wore out right at the point where the ogive of the round they were using (PMC IIRC) contacted it. They finished the test by switching to a round with a different ogive and accuracy returned.

Also, this was not a test to destruction. It was just a test where the rifle started showing unacceptable accuracy.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 9:53:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:
Where is MarkM with a comment how the barrels failed because they are 1:9 tiwst and a 1:7 twist would not have failed?



Not ME, BABY! I'm No Proponent of 1:7! It should be BANNED!
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 10:04:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 10:05:09 AM EDT by NYPatriot]
I wonder if the results would have been a bit different if the barrels had been chrome lined & made of 4150 steel?

BTW, markm... your this & that should be "banned" joke is way old and not funny anymore. Get some new material.
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 11:21:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 11:23:48 AM EDT by Variablebinary]

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By Ekie:

Originally Posted By Variablebinary:

Originally Posted By Grendelizor:
FeedingCannibal wrote: "Notice the points of failure both on this test and on Denny's. This lead to the development of the M4 SOCOM barrel."

Feeding, this is somewhat tangential, but are you saying there's a difference between the "regular" M4 carbine barrel and this "M4 SOCOM" barrel that you mention?

Could you please give me more info about the M4 SOCOM barrel? Do you have detailed specs on it? Pictures? Links? Thanks.

John



I could be wrong, but I think the SOCOM barrel is an HBAR, making it much more rugged than the profiled barrel



Not sure it should be called a HBAR, but the now standard M4A1 barrel is much larger in diameter under the guards.



A HBAR in the civilian world is different from a SOCOM barrel.



Who said they were the same. The SOCOM is an HBAR
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 11:33:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 11:42:41 AM EDT by Variablebinary]

Originally Posted By dennysguns:
There was an M16 16" Hbar in the batch. I did not grab it to photo was it was not spectacular. The barrel was not ruptured. The throat and bore were however ..........gone.

Denny



Which has long made me wonder why a pencil or profiled barrel would be put on an automatic weapon, or even a semi weapon that will be shot for extended durations.

Diemaco seems to know better and includes HBAR's on their carbines because of their "increased thermal mass and higher rigidity"

The obession some people have with barrels profiled down to the diameter of a mcdonalds straw (courtesy of MarkM) to save a few ounces is baffling. Obviously there is a problem with profiled barrels and high stress, which is the reason the SOCOM barrel exists at all

I suppose for a civilian it doesnt much matter since they wont ever subject their weapon to that kinda of abuse in one sitting under normal circumstances



These are not COLT barrels. The barrels are DPMS 1:9 4140 steel. I would say DPMS makes a damn good barrel!



This information will come in handy when some claims 4140 steel is cheap and not durable. 18k rounds sounds plenty durable
Link Posted: 7/13/2005 11:43:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/13/2005 11:44:12 AM EDT by HeavyMetal]
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top