Barrell Burners ?

vixdname

Lads, just a quick one.....I've heard and seen on Boards numerous times that the .220 swift for example is known as a barrel burner, what makes one round more of a barrel burner more then another and why dont the rifle manufacturers improve the barrels of these barrel burner calibers to stop them being barrel burners ?
Lastly, what calibers are know as barrel burners ?

Thanks a million lads !

stick shooter

What you are trying to avoid is " overbore " cartridge . This is where the water capacity compared to the calibre is quiet high . In other words 25-06 would be an overbore as compared to a 30-06.
BIG case+small diameter . bullet + LOTS of powder = barrel burner

Tackleberrywho

Coefficient of friction.
High speed rounds generally.


.220 swift
Any magnum centrefire.

heat caused by friction. IMHO a barrel burner is a <4000 round barrel life

stick shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Coefficient of friction.
High speed rounds generally.


.220 swift
Any magnum centrefire.

heat caused by friction. IMHO a barrel burner is a <4000 round barrel life

Yes and no , Speed is only one factor to take into account . There is a few other elements as well IE. case design and powder .

Tackleberrywho

stick shooter wrote: »

Yes and no , Speed is only one factor to take into account . There is a few other elements as well IE. case design and powder .

Friction more than speed. A longer round travelling at the same angular velocity would cause more friction in the same barrel.

All things being equal

stick shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Friction more than speed. A longer round travelling at the same angular velocity would cause more friction in the same barrel.

All things being equal

Once again yes and no ,I think we should stop calling them barrel burners and start calling then throat ERODERS .By you saying " friction " i guess you mean the diameter of the bore has being altered ?? (ie larger diameter ) . Which is not really the case . First thing that goes is the throat and down at the muzzle but the barrel diameter pretty much stays well within spec .

Tackleberrywho

stick shooter wrote: »

Once again yes and no ,I think we should stop calling them barrel burners and start calling then throat ERODERS .By you saying " friction " i guess you mean the diameter of the bore has being altered ?? (ie larger diameter ) . Which is not really the case . First thing that goes is the throat and down at the muzzle but the barrel diameter pretty much stays well within spec .

I said length, not diameter.

I specifically meant surface area in contact with barrel.
Friction caused by gyroscopic motion through a given area.

A 125 grain Vs 200 grain both travelling at the same speed.

I am being very specific to one cause of barrel wear.

stick shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I said length, not diameter.

I specifically meant surface area in contact with barrel.
Friction caused by gyroscopic motion through a given area.

A 125 grain Vs 200 grain both travelling at the same speed.

I am being very specific to one cause of barrel wear.

Thats like say a 32gr .204 and 155.5gr 308 travelling at the same speed Tought this was like for like on BARREL BURNERS

Tackleberrywho

stick shooter wrote: »

Thats like say a 32gr .204 155.5gr 308 travelling at the same speed Tought this was like for like on BARREL BURNERS

You seem to miss my point.
both same diametre, one head longer than another.

Also, some powders, to generate higher velocities are more corrosive than others.


Getting back to OP.

Rule of tumb, small head blisteringly fast normally is a barrel burner, or a hot loaded heavy Calibre.

Anywho, falling asleep here, up at 5am.
Will continue tomorrow

stick shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

You seem to miss my point.
both same diametre, one head longer than another.

Also, some powders, to generate higher velocities are more corrosive than others.


Getting back to OP.

Rule of tumb, small head blisteringly fast normally is a barrel burner, or a hot loaded heavy Calibre.

Anywho, falling asleep here, up at 5am.
Will continue tomorrow

You have totally gone on a tangent. Ok i will play your game. I will run the LONGER HEAD but i will run a moly round . Think the op was on about a barrel burner . And not what ifs .

Tac

Is a .300 Win Mag a barrel burner?

Cass

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

IMHO a barrel burner is a <4000 round barrel life

That would cover a good few calibers even ones not classed as barrel burners.

Personally i would view a caliber that would not give more than 1,800 - 2,200 rounds as a barrel burner.

Sika98k

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

You seem to miss my point.
both same diametre, one head longer than another.

Also, some powders, to generate higher velocities are more corrosive than others.


Getting back to OP.

Rule of tumb, small head blisteringly fast normally is a barrel burner, or a hot loaded heavy Calibre.

Anywho, falling asleep here, up at 5am.
Will continue tomorrow

Propellant powders are not corrosive. Some may be hotter or cooler than others but not corrosive in the true meaning of the word.

.243

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

You seem to miss my point.
both same diametre, one head longer than another.

Also, some powders, to generate higher velocities are more corrosive than others.


Getting back to OP.

Rule of tumb, small head blisteringly fast normally is a barrel burner, or a hot loaded heavy Calibre.

Anywho, falling asleep here, up at 5am.
Will continue tomorrow

so a 95gr remington ballistic bullet will do more damage(it being longer) than a 55gr bullet ????

some powders generate higher velocities because they are faster burning

Glensman

22-250 was always classed as a barrel burner...

I would have thought the .204 would be mild enough?

It wasn't me!

Lots of things contribute. It's certainly not as simple as heat/friction/bore size vs. powder capacity. It's a combination of those and more, and also the term derives from a time when barrel metallurgy isn't what it is now. As a result, it means a lot less now as well. 4000 rounds is certainly not being hard on barrels. Others have stated that the angle of the shoulders and the length of the case neck play a big part. If the case has a short neck and sloping shoulders, more of the burning (as opposed to gases expanding) takes place in the throat of the rifle (or so goes the theory). Mostly the concept of a barrel "burning out" relates to cracking, paving, visible in the first couple of inches of the barrel in front of the throat. If it were as simple as friction, the same would be visible for the full length of the barrel.

tomcat220t

1+for above!
Another factor in barrel wear is BARREL CARE !Not just lazy or poor cleaning habits but fast string shooting will cause premature barrel wear .

It wasn't me!

tomcat220t wrote: »

1+for above!
Another factor in barrel wear is BARREL CARE !Not just lazy or poor cleaning habits but fast string shooting will cause premature barrel wear .

Should have mentioned that alright tc, to say nothing of composition (Chromoly is harder working and harder wearing than stainless). The concept of "barrel burners" these days in a sporting rifle context is pretty meaningless. Even a high intensity centrefire is going to be good for 3k rounds at least in a sporting sense, where it's not going to involve string fire, provided it's properly cleaned and maintained. Shooting targets is a different story with high intensity rounds and stainless barrels. Also, most people shooting medium and big game will never shoot a barrel out to the extent that it stops them harvesting animals. For most people, if a rifle shoots 3" groups, they'll never fail to kill an animal inside 200 yards as a result of the rifle. A gun that shoots 1" groups at 100 is good for accurate shooting out to far further than most people should be shooting.

.243

tomcat220t wrote: »

1+for above!
Another factor in barrel wear is BARREL CARE !Not just lazy or poor cleaning habits but fast string shooting will cause premature barrel wear .

very true tomcat,that was the classic case for the .17 remington when it arrived here and was a great fox round,unfortunatly back then the supply of correct cleaning gear didnt follow them

Tackleberrywho

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

I said length, not diameter.

I specifically meant surface area in contact with barrel.
Friction caused by gyroscopic motion through a given area.

A 125 grain Vs 200 grain both travelling at the same speed.

I am being very specific to one cause of barrel wear.

Did anyone say there was only 1 Cause of barrel wear?
Powder talk may be referred to loaders as I do not know enough about it personally having never done it.

IMHO, Cleaning too much, or too little amongst several other factors.

I "hope" my .308 is good for 10,000 rounds, and Thus not be considered a barrell Burner....



Another poster asked about a .300 Win mag, @ 7.30 a box will barrel wear be a factor, before Money does??

Vegeta

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Another poster asked about a .300 Win mag, @ 7.30 a box will barrel wear be a factor, before Money does??

Clearly the 7.30 is a typo but .300 win mag ammo is not as dear as people would have you believe.

20 rounds of 180 grain Hornady SST ammo is 45-48 euro. Remember paying very similar for quality .270 ammo as well.

It wasn't me!

Your .308 will probably be good for 10k rounds, because it's a hunting rifle, and the demands are so much less than for a target rifle and the circumstances in which it's shot are so different. Will you notice an appreciable loss of accuracy before then? I would say yes. Will it matter worth a damn? No. Also, a .300 win mag costs about €5 more a box than say a .270 or a .30-06, maybe €7 or €8 more than a .308 at most. It's not going to bankrupt any hunter to shoot one over the other.

Tackleberrywho

Vegeta wrote: »

Clearly the 7.30 is a typo but .300 win mag ammo is not as dear as people would have you believe.

20 rounds of 180 grain Hornady SST ammo is 45-48 euro. Remember paying very similar for quality .270 ammo as well.

It should have said E47, (dodgy work typewriter.)

That still is Mad money to be putting a lot of rounds down range, cost E100 just to break in a barrel.:eek:
I broke my .308 in for E25

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Your .308 will probably be good for 10k rounds, because it's a hunting rifle, and the demands are so much less than for a target rifle and the circumstances in which it's shot are so different. Will you notice an appreciable loss of accuracy before then? I would say yes. Will it matter worth a damn? No. Also, a .300 win mag costs about €5 more a box than say a .270 or a .30-06, maybe €7 or €8 more than a .308 at most. It's not going to bankrupt any hunter to shoot one over the other.

Another great reason for a .308 as a Hunting barrel.

And backs up my point that Does it matter how many thousand rounds are fired when you will be sparing on rounds as E10,000 for around 5000 rounds WILL break most Hunters, especially after yesterdays Budget bring up teh price of AMMO

It wasn't me!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

It should have said E47, (dodgy work typewriter.)

That still is Mad money to be putting a lot of rounds down range, cost E100 just to break in a barrel.:eek:
I broke my .308 in for E25

Can buy PRVI stuff for €90/100 rounds or thereabouts to break in a barrel, won't break the bank. It'll also let you put plenty of rounds downrange, which is doubly important with a bigger gun, to maintain level of proficiency. No point trying to say it's too expensive by comparing the most expensive stuff to cheap ****e in the .308.

Tackleberrywho

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Can buy PRVI stuff for €90/100 rounds or thereabouts to break in a barrel, won't break the bank. It'll also let you put plenty of rounds downrange, which is doubly important with a bigger gun, to maintain level of proficiency. No point trying to say it's too expensive by comparing the most expensive stuff to cheap ****e in the .308.

HPS .308 E55 for 50 Target and E99 for 50 Hunting

It wasn't me!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Another great reason for a .308 as a Hunting barrel.

And backs up my point that Does it matter how many thousand rounds are fired when you will be sparing on rounds as E10,000 for around 5000 rounds WILL break most Hunters, especially after yesterdays Budget bring up teh price of AMMO

Eh, considering *most* hunters don't shoot more than a couple of hundred rounds a year, no typical round is going to break the bank. If you're spending the money on quality factory rifles with top end glass, then trying to argue that ammo costing €40 a box is infinitely better value and more sensible than ammo costing €45 a box, when you won't use ten boxes a year, then you're really not keeping an eye on economy in the first place. A .308 is a great cartridge, but it's not a magic one. Bigger .30 calibres do do things it can't, at not much more cost. Not like anyone's spending that €10k in one sitting when it'll take them fifteen years to shoot out that barrel.

It wasn't me!

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

HPS .308 E55 for 50 Target and E99 for 50 Hunting

Yes, and the .300 mag can be shot even cheaper, and it'll be a hunting bullet too, one way or another. This isn't an argument about the .308 vs. the .300 mag at all, and the appreciable barrel life (You'll easily get 5k out of a .300 mag for the same relative loss as you'll see in a .308 at 10k) is meaningless, since you'll probably rebarrel out of boredom/curiosity/desire to try something new long before then since it's the difference between maybe fifteen years and maybe thirty of barrel life.

Vegeta

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

And backs up my point that Does it matter how many thousand rounds are fired when you will be sparing on rounds as E10,000 for around 5000 rounds WILL break most Hunters, especially after yesterdays Budget bring up teh price of AMMO

How many rounds are you using a season???

5000 rounds would be about 80 years supply if shooting 60 rounds a season. I'll be long dead in 80 years.

.243

Tac wrote: »

Is a .300 Win Mag a barrel burner?

i would think so,considering you are pushing .30cal bullet with twice the amount of powder behind it compared to the .308

Cass

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

It should have said E47, (dodgy work typewriter.)

What price are you paying for Superperformance?

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

........... you will be sparing on rounds as E10,000 for around 5000 rounds WILL break most Hunters, ........

€2 a round. About average.

Tackleberrywho

Vegeta wrote: »

How many rounds are you using a season???

5000 rounds would be about 80 years supply if shooting 60 rounds a season. I'll be long dead in 80 years.

Well I reckon between 300-350, As I bought 200 in may and they are gone, and I had the remains of 100 before that also gone, and I just got anoth er150 for teh lead up to christmas, but i do practice with my .308 as often as I can.

I put 40 .308 rounds down range last Thursday.

I do take your point, it will see you out.

tac foley

I have two rifles that qualify as 'barrel burners', according to the premises posted here.

1. Is a Winchester Model 70 Sporter made in 1952 in .220 Swift - the original so-called 'barrel burner'. Certainly, the term was well-deserved at the time that it was introduced in 1935, as the metallurgy was not up to a 4200fps 55gr bullet. It took WW2 and massive advances made in metallurgy to make high-chrome steel for barrels that would last longer than a few hundred rounds. My old gun has a Douglas barrel put on it in 1972 and has prolly had five or six thousand rounds down it now. In deference to the fragile reputation that still hangs on to this calibre I ensure that my loads are kept to around 3800 or so - plenty fast enough for my needs. I shoot the gun a lot - it weighs only just eight pounds with its sling and basic x10 Weaver scope. It's a sure-fire chuck slayer if I do my bit - right out to as far as I can reasonably reach with the plain reticle scope - around 450 yards on a clear morning.

2. Is a Browning [actually Miroku-built] High Wall in .22-250. It has a 28" full octagon barrel, is twelve years old and is a screamer. I only shoot factory stuff in it and as such I can count how many rounds it has had - precisely 2240. No wear that can be detected either. That is a sure and certain 550 yard dog-buster, proven many times.

I'm told by a pal who shoots a 6.5-284 that his barrels are shot out at around 1200 rounds - certainly, he seems to be constantly zeroing a new barrel in whenever I see him. So for me, anything that is shot out at less than 2000 rounds could be considered to be a barrel burner. This is why the new calibres coming along, like the 6.5x47 and so on, with their instant rep as long-lastingly accurate, are so cost-effective, after the initial sticker-shock has been overcome.

tac

tac foley

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Should have mentioned that alright tc, to say nothing of composition (Chromoly is harder working and harder wearing than stainless). The concept of "barrel burners" these days in a sporting rifle context is pretty meaningless. Even a high intensity centrefire is going to be good for 3k rounds at least in a sporting sense, where it's not going to involve string fire, provided it's properly cleaned and maintained. Shooting targets is a different story with high intensity rounds and stainless barrels. Also, most people shooting medium and big game will never shoot a barrel out to the extent that it stops them harvesting animals. For most people, if a rifle shoots 3" groups, they'll never fail to kill an animal inside 200 yards as a result of the rifle. A gun that shoots 1" groups at 100 is good for accurate shooting out to far further than most people should be shooting.

A VERY sensible post, IMO, that hits the nail right on the head.

tac

stick shooter

tac foley wrote: »

I have two rifles that qualify as 'barrel burners', according to the premises posted here.

1. Is a Winchester Model 70 Sporter made in 1952 in .220 Swift - the original so-called 'barrel burner'. Certainly, the term was well-deserved at the time that it was introduced in 1935, as the metallurgy was not up to a 4200fps 55gr bullet. It took WW2 and massive advances made in metallurgy to make high-chrome steel for barrels that would last longer than a few hundred rounds. My old gun has a Douglas barrel put on it in 1972 and has prolly had five or six thousand rounds down it now. In deference to the fragile reputation that still hangs on to this calibre I ensure that my loads are kept to around 3800 or so - plenty fast enough for my needs. I shoot the gun a lot - it weighs only just eight pounds with its sling and basic x10 Weaver scope. It's a sure-fire chuck slayer if I do my bit - right out to as far as I can reasonably reach with the plain reticle scope - around 450 yards on a clear morning.

2. Is a Browning [actually Miroku-built] High Wall in .22-250. It has a 28" full octagon barrel, is twelve years old and is a screamer. I only shoot factory stuff in it and as such I can count how many rounds it has had - precisely 2240. No wear that can be detected either. That is a sure and certain 550 yard dog-buster, proven many times.

I'm told by a pal who shoots a 6.5-284 that his barrels are shot out at around 1200 rounds - certainly, he seems to be constantly zeroing a new barrel in whenever I see him. So for me, anything that is shot out at less than 2000 rounds could be considered to be a barrel burner. This is why the new calibres coming along, like the 6.5x47 and so on, with their instant rep as long-lastingly accurate, are so cost-effective, after the initial sticker-shock has been overcome.

tac

Even though the 6.5x47 has x2+ the barrel life of the 6.5x284 the 6.5x248 has a lot more performance at 800-1000 yards .
Hard for most target shooters to put a price on performance .
I shoot my 270 for deer and foxes so i wont worrying

tac foley

stick shooter wrote: »

Even though the 6.5x47 has x2+ the barrel life of the 6.5x284 the 6.5x248 has a lot more performance at 800-1000 yards .
Hard for most target shooters to put a price on performance .
I shoot my 270 for deer and foxes so i wont worrying

I'm not talking about performance, although I would disagree with your comment - many TR shooters here in UK are buying into the 6.5x47 - eight in our club alone so far this year - but the short barrel-life of the 6.5-284 rightly denotes it as a barrel burner.

Figures in the USA suggest that the 6.5x47 has a VERY long life, and although nobody has yet admitted to shooting more than a few thousand rounds down such a barrel the various makers are quite confident about achieving such accurate longevity.

tac

tomcat220t

tac foley wrote: »

I'm not talking about performance, although I would disagree with your comment - many TR shooters here in UK are buying into the 6.5x47 - eight in our club alone so far this year - but the short barrel-life of the 6.5-284 rightly denotes it as a barrel burner.

Figures in the USA suggest that the 6.5x47 has a VERY long life, and although nobody has yet admitted to shooting more than a few thousand rounds down such a barrel the various makers are quite confident about achieving such accurate longevity.

tac

As side from the 6.5x47 extra barrel life ,what other way does it outperform the 6.5x284

tac foley

tomcat220t wrote: »

As side from the 6.5x47 extra barrel life ,what other way does it outperform the 6.5x284

I suspect that you are asking me questions for which you already have answers, but I'll humour you anyhow.

1. There is, at the time of writing, no factory 6.5-284 ammunition - although perhaps you know something to the contrary.

EDIT - HPS make it.

2. 6.5x47 ammunition can be readily bought over the counter in many places.

3. The 'performance' need not be instantly apparent, but manifests in many other ways -

a. Shorter, lighter guns from the shorter lighter optimal length barrel - 28" is plenty long enough, and most I see here in UK, USA and Canada are 24-26".

b. For those who reload there is a substantial saving on the amount of propellant used - loads are typically between 10 and 20% less than those of a .308Win, which it happily totally eclipses - at least out to a 1000 yards. Case life is also extended becuase of the use of cooler-burning propellants such as RL15 - which brings us back to barrel life.

c. There is a multiplicity of actions out there ready to chamber for the 6.5x47 - anything that would take the .308Win, including all those that use a magazine, will happily fit the 6.5x47, too - it fits into EVERY .308win magazine ever made without alteration.

For some folks, the annual barrel change of a 6.5-284 is pretty much the price you pay for shooting an elite cartridge in an elite gun in a fairly exclusive sport. Over here we tend to be somewhat poorer than you are, and shooting a 6.5x47 means that we can shoot it in every kind of competition you can imagine - not just the open TR, but also the immensely popular practical/tactical [in which the Irish Army do so well], BR - or even hunt with it, as my cousin in Idaho does. I have no idea how much it costs in the RoI to change a top-grade barrel, and then go through the hoops [and expense] of shooting it in and finding a sweet load for it - every year - but it can't be cheap. Knowing that your new rifle - even shooting a 1000 rounds a year - will probably last you at least five years before you even need to think about a new barrel certainly has an appeal.

Multiple champion shooter Vince Bottomley - one of the great proponents of the 6.5x47 - certainly thinks so, and I listen to him.

tac

PS - when my .308Win Krico 650SS finally gives up the ghost, accuracy-wise, it will be rebarrelled as a 6.5x47, enabling me to keep using my VERY expensive Krico 5-round magazines. I have eight of them, at around eu150 each.

tomcat220t

So it simply does not OUTPERFORM the 6.5x284 !What barrel life does the 6.5x47 have at match paces in F-class ?5000+ rounds sounds very optimistic,imo!The 6.5x284 is available in factory form .Your 6.5x47 is not going to be competitive at 1000 yards against the faster 6.5x284 ,imo.Even the 6xc outperforms it at 1000 yards ! Does Vince use for F-class open~(800-900-1000) ?
There is a price to pay for performance but the 6.5x47 would not be a good example of compromise between the 6.5x47 and 6.5x284 .

tac foley

tomcat220t wrote: »

So it simply does not OUTPERFORM the 6.5x284 !What barrel life does the 6.5x47 have at match paces in F-class ?5000+ rounds sounds very optimistic,imo!The 6.5x284 is available in factory form .Your 6.5x47 is not going to be competitive at 1000 yards against the faster 6.5x284 ,imo.Even the 6xc outperforms it at 1000 yards ! Does Vince use for F-class open~(800-900-1000) ?
There is a price to pay for performance but the 6.5x47 would not be a good example of compromise between the 6.5x47 and 6.5x284 .

Sir - you are mostly correct. However, I can only find 6.5-284 ballistic tip bullets. Can you advise me on the availability of over-the-counter target ammunition for this calibre?

tac

tomcat220t

tac foley wrote: »

Sir - you are mostly correct. However, I can only find 6.5-284 ballistic tip bullets. Can you advise me on the availability of over-the-counter target ammunition for this calibre?

tac

HPS uk

tac foley

Thank you for that information.

Sadly, I don't know anybody here rich enough to afford that ammunition. We are mostly poor pensioners, or at least unemployed, many of us disabled in one way or another and reliant for our enjoyment by reading fora such as this one where there is such a wealth of lively discourse and exchange of information.

Best

tac

tomcat220t

tac foley wrote: »

Thank you for that information.

Sadly, I don't know anybody here rich enough to afford that ammunition. We are mostly poor pensioners, or at least unemployed, many of us disabled in one way or another and reliant for our enjoyment by reading fora such as this one where there is such a wealth of lively discourse and exchange of information.

Best

tac

How much is the lapua 6.5x47 a box of 20 Bearing in mind that the hps is probably better quality match ammo !
This thread was about barrel burners .....whats the price or availability of such ammo got to do with it .
If one cant afford HPS but could afford 6.5x47 Lapua match ammo
Your reply dont make sence to me ,sorry !

Glensman

So the 6.5-284 is superior in every way except barrel longevity?

It wasn't me!

Throw the same bullet faster, and providing it's still acceptable in terms of recoil, it will shoot better in wind, up to the point where it's destabilised by sheer velocity, or blows up from friction, which is quite unlikely with a quality bullet. 6.5-284 is still a nice light cartridge in recoil terms, so it's very easy to shoot. Driving the same bullet faster, it'll be easier to shoot well with than the 6.5x47, particularly in higher winds.

tac foley

tomcat220t wrote: »

How much is the lapua 6.5x47 a box of 20 Bearing in mind that the hps is probably better quality match ammo !
This thread was about barrel burners .....whats the price or availability of such ammo got to do with it .
If one cant afford HPS but could afford 6.5x47 Lapua match ammo
Your reply dont make sence to me ,sorry !

Ah, apologies for thread drift, that began back at post #31 with prices of ammunition.

Seeing as how we are so poor over here, most of us don't actually buy ammunition - especially at those prices. We, being mean and miserly, make it instead, as, I hope, all of you guys over there will soon be able to do.

As for store-bought ammunition, especially European-made stuff, you usually get it cheaper than we do, especially when you figure out that over here we get roughly one-to-one £ to Euro. The official rate of exchange is about eu1.20 the £, BTW.

For the time being.

All of that could change, however.

tac

tac foley

Glensman wrote: »

So the 6.5-284 is superior in every way except barrel longevity?

You are right - if ALL you do is 1000 yard TR, where it is still very popular, but not quite the King of the Hill that it used to be.

You can buy a LOT of factory 6.5x47 ammunition for the price of a new barrel every year. You can buy an even more prodigious amount of shooting ammunition in component form, too.

Remember that many of us outside the Republic of Ireland enjoy many other forms of long-range precision shooting than static TR, as I mentioned before.

Longer barrel life, gentler recoil, ease of reloading with long-life cases and with less powder, lighter but still as accurate guns, shorter and lighter guns, too, all add up to a quality of their own.

tac

tomcat220t

Glensman wrote: »

So the 6.5-284 is superior in every way except barrel longevity?

The 6.5x47 was designed by Lapua as a 300 meter caliber where as the 6.5x284 is used more for 800-1000 yards .Big gap in performance !So the 6.5x47 is not a good choice over the 6.5x284 ,imo.
A much better example is straight .284 running the 180gr bergers, that will shoot well inside the 6.5x284 at 1000+ yards and still give a real word barrel life of app 3000+ rounds as apposed the 1000-1200 rounds of the 6.5x284.

FISMA

vixdname wrote: »

Lads, just a quick one.....I've heard and seen on Boards numerous times that the .220 swift for example is known as a barrel burner...

Vix,
I think this term was coined years ago. Long before the standards of today's metallurgy. Back in those days, I literally think the barrel could be gone in 300 or 400 shots. Definitely, under 1000.

I doubt that is going to happen today with a .220Swift. Especially, if you take care of your kit.

Also, life is too short to worry about burning out barrels. Shoot the gun you want, drink the pint you want, and marry the gal you want.

I understand your concern, but don't overthink it. If you shoot the barrel out, congratulate yourself and get another.

Also, if reloading ever comes your way, maybe you could run less powder, if your range allows it.

Cass

FISMA wrote: »

I understand your concern, but don't overthink it. If you shoot the barrel out, congratulate yourself and get another.
.

Without subscribing to an overly simplistic approach i would agree with this.

We have at our disposal a number of gun smiths, and th ability to have new barrels installed when old ones burn out or when we want - basically. A service we did not have back a few years ago. Plus too many people think new barrel/custom barrel and they think big money. Its not.