quote:

doesn't understand the difference between wants & needs, and often doesn't have the shooting capabilities to exploit any differences.

Right now, that is very likely me.

quote:

They offer a 12.5 . Midlength too. They are a little spendy but Bartlein is as good as it gets.

Lead times are longer there, than that other one I checked.

I am thinking I am going to go with the WOA, get it modified to what I think I want, and use it to prove the concept. If the rifle fulfills the idea, and said idea shows true merit in my use-case, I'll pony up the money and the patience for an even nicer barrel. I'll have one to shoot in the meantime, and then I can pass it on to a buddy, or keep it as a spare.

What optic are you going to use?

Given the medium range intent, combined with the desire to keep it handy(ish), I plan to top it with my Leupold 6HD Patrol 1-6. A 1-8, or even 1-10, would be preferred, but there's no way in hell I can swing more nice glass right now. I want to keep the true 1x ability, and I do not want to use an offset or piggy-back dot optic.

So I have potentially resigned myself to a short gas block journal, which opens my options up. I'll revisit everyone's recommendations, and see what I can whittle down to. Thanks again.

Is there a reason Noveske hasn't been mentioned? They make a 12.5 mid, it's available, and it's not crazy expensive. Kind of a medium profile. I was under the impression they have a very good reputation.
https://noveske.com/products/l...e_headspaced-bolt=NO

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Is there a reason Noveske hasn't been mentioned?

Nothing wrong with it, a good dependable brand but you prescribed precision .
Keep Stainless Steel and Wylde Chambers in mind.
Otherwise you are looking more to longevity, durability rather than performance.

The linked barrel is stainless, with their "proprietary match chamber".

So, I have assembled a prototype of sorts, to use for the next while, to see how practical this concept will be, for me, in the context of my perceived use-case. I used parts from three different uppers to assemble a 10", we'll call it, "mini SPR". The barrel in use is not anything like what I initially inquired about here, unfortunately, but it is more accurate than the gun I had been shooting most lately. This represents the extreme end of the spectrum, in terms of barrel length, which is something I actually started to consider over the past couple days. I intend to get some muzzle velocity data, and maybe even bolster that with some 100m velocity data, in order to determine velocities at further ranges, with at least two different "performance" factory loads, in order to determine "maximum performance range"; as in the maximum ranges that said loads will perform as advertised. I also need to do some flash assessments over the next while, with different loads and different silencers; the best performance there may dictate a certain silencer, which may dictate a certain barrel configuration. I have an Otter Creek OCM5, which has performed well in past flash assessments; if it does exceptionally well, that may dictate a 12.5" on a carbine gas system (a sort of true mini SPR). If a SF SOCOM does best with flash with the desired loads, I'd be considering a 12.5 mid or a 10.5 carbine; a decision influenced also by the velocity experiments with this prototype. Loads to be initially measured, in both velocity and flash, will be 70gr TSX, 73gr FTX, 75gr Interlock, and 62gr Fusion MSR. All of them likely have different minimum performance velocities, which will dictate, combined with muzzle velocities, "maximum performance range". I'll also be measuring these loads for accuracy, and I have a suspicion that the TSX will win in that regard. Accuracy is what this upper project is ultimately about, but the short barrels won't yield the velocity required for most OTM bullets to fragment past anything but "CQB" distances. So, determining an accurate performance bullet is something I think I'd like to mess with. Anyway, just an update on where my head's at, in regards to this project. I know it's getting convoluted, and I apologize.

It's always good to learn about experiments like yours. Please keep us posted.

As with most of my gun-related endeavors, I'll be forced to chip away at this a little at a time, and usually under less-than-ideal conditions. That being said, I was able to do some test-runs on the chrono setup; I used 55gr to do this testing, and to bring the zero in on the recently assembled prototype "mini recce" at the same time.

I logged two five-shot groups at the muzzle. The two averages were 2657fps and 2703fps. Second group difference due to heat, I suppose. I then moved the chrono to the target (about 5m shy of it, due to a terrain requirement), and fired one more group. Unfortunately, only one of the five shots at the target was captured; it was 2331fps. I suspect this is due to the target being in the shade, while the shooting position is in the sun. The day was uniformly overcast to boot, but not excessively dark. Perhaps a sunny day will have enough light hitting the hoods, when positioned at the target.

The chrono setup is a Pact with the hoods 24" apart.

Again, this is not with the ammunition that is ultimately the goal here, but I wanted to share the test run with folks.

**I am moving these ongoing velocity measurements to a more relevant thread I posted in the ammo forum.**

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I logged two five-shot groups at the muzzle. The two averages were 2657fps and 2703fps. Second group difference due to heat, I suppose.

Assuming the 55gr ammo is factory FMJ, the MV variance is almost certainly due to crappy manufacturing tolerances. I've seen that kind of MV swing across multiple ammo brands. This contributes to FMJ's poor accuracy at distance.

I've fired multiple 5-round groups back to back with quality ammo and have observed limited, if any, MV increases.

It appears you already have a barrel, but Wilson Combat has an 11.3" model on sale for $172.

quote:

almost certainly due to crappy manufacturing tolerances

Gotcha.

quote:

It appears you already have a barrel, but Wilson Combat has an 11.3" model on sale for $172

I have a barrel, not the barrel. This is a barrel I had already, and is only being used in the proof-of-concept prototype, for the purpose of assessing the performance potential of the mentioned rounds, and getting a feeling for the style of rifle I am pondering. In regards to the Wilson barrels, am I missing something, when it comes to the profile? Are heavy profiles no longer desirable in precision applications? Are the barrels I am considering short enough that profile doesn't really matter, even after a couple mags and with a silencer on the end? I had been leaning toward the Noveske offerings, due to their profile being a bit stouter.

The WC barrels I use are the Recon profile, primarily the fluted version. That's the profile of the 14.5" barrel I showed results of on page 1 of this thread. I've used fluted Recon profiles of 16" and 18" barrels quite successfully in competition. The Recon profile isn't a bull barrel, it isn't a pencil profile -- it just seems to be a middle-ish of the road profile that works.

The Noveske barrel you linked also works, and should be quite accurate. I know that I've shot against guys with similar skillsets as mine, using Noveske barrels twice. Could be more often than that, but not everyone broadcasts their barrel brands. I'm confident my Wilsons have superior accuracy -- maybe not by much, but enough that I'd notice it.

****
I've already discussed heat issues in your heat thread. Go back and read about the WC barrel that I got pretty toasty in a match.

I did go back and re-read that. Thank you for the reminder. I guess the heavy profiles in carbines are almost a sort of relic of a bygone era at this point.

Alright; I went for the extreme end of the length spectrum. I bought a Noveske 10.5" stainless barrel; $307 shipped. My prototype, with a 10" barrel, seems to fit the bill, length-wise, considering it'll always have a silencer attached. I figure, if I go to 11.5", I may as well jump to 12.5" with mid gas, so those were the choices. 10.5" was a bit cheaper, and keeps it short; I thought the 12.5 might be long enough that I lose the tote-ability and CQB handling. We'll see how it shakes out. I'll pick up the rest of the proper parts at a snails pace, but the barrel can go right into the prototype build; the big downside being it's not floated, but the Noveske has a stout profile, which should help with that. I'll update with accuracy reports ASAP!

Turns out my LGS actually has a Wilson pistol, that has the exact barrel Fritz linked to. I was damn close to buying that barrel, as the price was right, but I ended up selling a couple small things over the past few days; that combined with the Noveske sale tipped me that way. The Wilson pistol at the LGS has a brace, so I may be able to work a deal on that thing, since he'll likely be awful keen to get rid of it soon.

Barrel came in on Monday; so did a PRI front sight gas block. Visited the local gunsmith at a very opportune time, as his schedule permitted two necessary modifications. I needed the rear of the gas block shaved .024", to accommodate a handguard retainer ring; and I threw a hail Mary on a PRI gas block mod that enables the use of that barrel-mounted flip up sight. So, I should be able to get it together in the next couple days. I'll use the Griffin M4SDK, until I can afford another SF muzzle device. The gun will also remain unfloated, until I pick out, and can afford, a free float handguard. Next week should prove favorable, for some accuracy testing, for which I will employ my bipod and rear bag. I'll update more soon. This build also ties into the GP carbine concept, and my velocity and accuracy observations of performance ammunition.

First 10rd group through the Noveske barrel measured 3.5". This was M193 shot from a bipod and rear bag, in the prone.

I shot a few more groups, with three different match and/or "performance" loads; the best of which was 2.5". The 10rd group is a game-changer; I feel like I have been cheating myself for the last decade.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

This is a thorough article that I found useful. It's saying a bunch of stuff y'all know already, but it was good info for me.
https://precisionrifleblog.com...istics-for-shooters/
I have been misleading myself for the duration of my time behind rifles; it's really got me humbled. Luckily I don't have a history of being particularly braggadocious, when it comes to the performance of me or my rifles, and I am smart enough to know that outstanding performances are almost always flukes, but I have definitely been misjudging both me and my rifles.

I have, so far, been disappointed with the performance of this Noveske barrel. Assessment, at this point, has been limited, but early results aren't blowing me away. However, considering the performance I perceived in my other rifles, in the past, using worthless assessment procedures, it's very likely that this barrel is the most accurate I have ever owned.

Thanks for that article. Based on a quick scan, I was familiar with much/some of what’s discussed, but it definitely looks worthy of a close read.

As for your results with the Noveske barrel, I can’t recommend too strongly that you test it with something other than anyone’s M193 ammunition.

I haven’t really worked to determine what’s the best factory 223 Remington for precision, but I don’t expect anything better than what you reported for M193. In general Federal and Hornady match ammunition have far better reputations and although most of my experience with those loads is with other cartridges, 308 Win and 6.5 CM, I would recommend trying some.

In my experience for something that’s not horribly expensive I’ve had decent results with IMI 77 grain OTM, LR, Mod 1. Every now and then it seems to throw an unexpected flyer, but as it’s been some time since I’ve really focused on precision with the round, that may have been me. Another load I’ve been trying recently is Berger 77 grain OTM Tactical. For serious purposes I prefer Speer 62 and 75 grain Gold Dot for possible use against barriers, but otherwise both of those loads are somewhat similar to the Black Hills MK 262 that supposedly enjoyed a very good reputation among the military units that used it.

I have shot some good stuff too. The 2.5" came from good stuff; not M193. I want to do more shooting, before I give a more detailed report.

Okay, I didn’t understand that, and some things are not always clear in an internet discussion (and perhaps I just missed it).
Please keep us posted.