barrel life calculator
- Thread starter gotchanow
- Start date
Jack Roberts
Moderator - Deceased
Too bad you have to buy a newer version of MS Office to open it.
You can save xl files in any version. If it was in an older version many more people could see it.
Jack
You can save xl files in any version. If it was in an older version many more people could see it.
Jack
Jack Roberts
Moderator - Deceased
But it could just as easily have been saved as an earlier version. Why limit the number of people who can open it to only those who have bought the MS office package within the last 10 years? It is a $500-700 piece of software.
Jack
Jack
gotchanow
Active member
Heres a formula I found I dont know how you put it in a spreadsheet
My formula, or rule-of-thumb process, is:
1. Calculate the bore area in square millimeters.
2. Use one grain of powder for each square millimeter. This is what
I call the reference, or base powder charge.
Example: .30 caliber bore = 45.6 square millimeters.
Base powder charge for .30 caliber is 45.6 grains.
A .30 cal. cartridge that burns 45.6 grains of powder should give a
barrel life of about 3000 rounds of good accuracy.
3. If a larger cartridge is used and it burns more powder, the
accuracy life in rounds for that bore size is reduced. The amount
of reduction is determined by
a. Divide the increased charge by the base charge, then square
the answer.
b. Divide that answer into 3000.
Example: .28 caliber bore has a base charge of 38.5 grains.
Cartridge burns 57.8 grains of powder.
(57.8/38.5) squared is 2.25.
3000 divided by 2.25 is 1,333 rounds.
If anyone can shoot a hole through this theory, I welcome that shot. This
is more or less an emperical process based on accurate barrel life in
several calibers as reported to me by lots of folks. All I did was study
the data and determine what math would give a best-fit formula.
And if someone has a better method, I'd like to know what it is. My
formulas may not be the best
heres a formula I dont know how you would put it in a spread sheet
Quote:
But it could just as easily have been saved as an earlier version. Why limit the number of people who can open it to only those who have bought the MS office package within the last 10 years? It is a $500-700 piece of software.
Jack
uh, because the majority of office products were sold in the past 10 years? what version of office are you running?
2007 upgrade can be bought new for less than $250.00. full version for less than $500.00.
But it could just as easily have been saved as an earlier version. Why limit the number of people who can open it to only those who have bought the MS office package within the last 10 years? It is a $500-700 piece of software.
Jack
uh, because the majority of office products were sold in the past 10 years? what version of office are you running?
2007 upgrade can be bought new for less than $250.00. full version for less than $500.00.
Hangtime
New member
Quote:
But it could just as easily have been saved as an earlier version. Why limit the number of people who can open it to only those who have bought the MS office package within the last 10 years? It is a $500-700 piece of software.
Jack
As strictly an FYI for those interested, you can open that with Open Office.org 2.0.
This program is FREE, as an open source type program, and replicates what MS Office / Word, etc. does in most cases. Hard to beat that deal.
I just used it to open that link so it does work with that particular link.
Hope this helps, and maybe saves someone some $$$$$.
Hangtime.
But it could just as easily have been saved as an earlier version. Why limit the number of people who can open it to only those who have bought the MS office package within the last 10 years? It is a $500-700 piece of software.
Jack
As strictly an FYI for those interested, you can open that with Open Office.org 2.0.
This program is FREE, as an open source type program, and replicates what MS Office / Word, etc. does in most cases. Hard to beat that deal.
I just used it to open that link so it does work with that particular link.
Hope this helps, and maybe saves someone some $$$$$.
Hangtime.
Hangtime
New member
Quote:
thanks hangtime. i wouldn't know what to say if jack roberts actually had version 3.0!
You're more than welcome, and glad it may be of some help to you, and possibly others.
I don't know anything whatsoever about MS Office / Word, etc. and their different versions, as Open Office is all I've ever had. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
Hangtime.
thanks hangtime. i wouldn't know what to say if jack roberts actually had version 3.0!
You're more than welcome, and glad it may be of some help to you, and possibly others.
I don't know anything whatsoever about MS Office / Word, etc. and their different versions, as Open Office is all I've ever had. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grinning-smiley-003.gif
Hangtime.
CatShooter
New member
Quote:
has anyone seen this and how accurate do you think it is web page
I looked at it, ran some known barrel lives, and it's way off... so I don't think it is very accurate.
Either that, or I'm not pulling the trigger hard enough.
If you run some classic "known" barrel lives, like the 308 or .223, the formula is so far off, there is no way it can be taken seriously.
The calculator says that the 243 has 1862 rounds of barrel life. That's ok, cuz 243's are rough on barrels... but it also says that the 223 Rem has 2,700 rounds of barrel life.
Anyone that believes that the .223 has only 900 rounds more barrel life than a 243 Winchester, just has never owned a 223 and shot it much.
--
Oddly, a friend and I some years back looked at this, and came to the observation that the barrel life (normal rifles and cartridges, not 16" cannons), could be determined by simply the type of powder that was optimum burning rate for the round.
cartridges that used 4198 as a optimum powder, whether a .222 Rem or a 458 Winchester Mag, had about the same barrel life.
Cartridges that used H-322 type powders had the same barrel life - the same applied to 4350, 4831, etc.
The reasons are rather complex, and of course, NO formula can predict barrel life to single or double digits (or even low triple digits) - to say some combination will give 1687 rounds of barrel life is so ludicrous, as to not require comment.
To say that a certain cartridge will give 2,000 to 2,500... or 6,000 to 8,000 rounds of barrel life is a reasonable expression.
.
has anyone seen this and how accurate do you think it is web page
I looked at it, ran some known barrel lives, and it's way off... so I don't think it is very accurate.
Either that, or I'm not pulling the trigger hard enough.
If you run some classic "known" barrel lives, like the 308 or .223, the formula is so far off, there is no way it can be taken seriously.
The calculator says that the 243 has 1862 rounds of barrel life. That's ok, cuz 243's are rough on barrels... but it also says that the 223 Rem has 2,700 rounds of barrel life.
Anyone that believes that the .223 has only 900 rounds more barrel life than a 243 Winchester, just has never owned a 223 and shot it much.
--
Oddly, a friend and I some years back looked at this, and came to the observation that the barrel life (normal rifles and cartridges, not 16" cannons), could be determined by simply the type of powder that was optimum burning rate for the round.
cartridges that used 4198 as a optimum powder, whether a .222 Rem or a 458 Winchester Mag, had about the same barrel life.
Cartridges that used H-322 type powders had the same barrel life - the same applied to 4350, 4831, etc.
The reasons are rather complex, and of course, NO formula can predict barrel life to single or double digits (or even low triple digits) - to say some combination will give 1687 rounds of barrel life is so ludicrous, as to not require comment.
To say that a certain cartridge will give 2,000 to 2,500... or 6,000 to 8,000 rounds of barrel life is a reasonable expression.
.
Linefinder
New member
I've had a copy (or one like it) for a few years. I've not found it to be a very accurate prediction tool.
Barrel life can be a very hard thing to define. The first .223 Rem barrel I shot out went ~14K rounds and was still routinely killing pdogs well beyond 300 yards. Such accuracy, of course, wouldn't enthuse a BR guy, but it was still serving my purposes very well.
The only way I knew it was definitely going downhill was that it would occasionally sling a flyer...and I mean really sling it...like 3 feet at 250 yards. Then it'd kill the next 10 pdogs straight at distances farther than that.
When I finally replaced the barrel, there was zero rifling for 8" ahead of the now nonexistant throat.
I had a 6mm Rem barrel that would reliably put 10 shots into 5/8" at 100 yards. It did that from day one. And it was still doing that the day I retired it, but...it'd only do it for 10 shots. The next 20 shots usually wouldn't even hit paper till I pulled the target back in to 50 yards, and then they were "grouping" about 8".
I could give the barrel a good cleaning, and it was back to 5/8". For ten more shots. Then, it played "shotgun" again.
Upon borescope inspection, you'd see what appeared to be normal "moderate" throat wear. IOW, nothing that you'd think to worry about, by visual inspection. But it was enough that copper fouling was destroying the barrel's accuracy after 10 rounds.
I had a Browning ABolt Varminter in .223 Rem, that I sold after ~1200 rounds. I could tell the throat was wearing so fast that it'd never complete an entire summer of pdog work.
I guess the throat had a soft spot in it. I sold it to a 'yote hunter after telling him why I was selling it. It's still on the original barrel and it's still a fine 'yote gun.
I've got a Lilja 3-groove SST in .223 Rem on a Mod 70 Heavy Varmint that lost .012" in it's first 200 rounds, but hasn't eroded that much again in the past 3000. At this rate, it's gonna outlive me.
I think each barrel is a world unto itself, and trying to predict it's life-cycle is an exercise in frustration. Some shoot, some don't. Some die of old age, some die young. About the only precautions I know to take are to not shoot it too hot, and to be careful with the cleaning rod.
Mike
Barrel life can be a very hard thing to define. The first .223 Rem barrel I shot out went ~14K rounds and was still routinely killing pdogs well beyond 300 yards. Such accuracy, of course, wouldn't enthuse a BR guy, but it was still serving my purposes very well.
The only way I knew it was definitely going downhill was that it would occasionally sling a flyer...and I mean really sling it...like 3 feet at 250 yards. Then it'd kill the next 10 pdogs straight at distances farther than that.
When I finally replaced the barrel, there was zero rifling for 8" ahead of the now nonexistant throat.
I had a 6mm Rem barrel that would reliably put 10 shots into 5/8" at 100 yards. It did that from day one. And it was still doing that the day I retired it, but...it'd only do it for 10 shots. The next 20 shots usually wouldn't even hit paper till I pulled the target back in to 50 yards, and then they were "grouping" about 8".
I could give the barrel a good cleaning, and it was back to 5/8". For ten more shots. Then, it played "shotgun" again.
Upon borescope inspection, you'd see what appeared to be normal "moderate" throat wear. IOW, nothing that you'd think to worry about, by visual inspection. But it was enough that copper fouling was destroying the barrel's accuracy after 10 rounds.
I had a Browning ABolt Varminter in .223 Rem, that I sold after ~1200 rounds. I could tell the throat was wearing so fast that it'd never complete an entire summer of pdog work.
I guess the throat had a soft spot in it. I sold it to a 'yote hunter after telling him why I was selling it. It's still on the original barrel and it's still a fine 'yote gun.
I've got a Lilja 3-groove SST in .223 Rem on a Mod 70 Heavy Varmint that lost .012" in it's first 200 rounds, but hasn't eroded that much again in the past 3000. At this rate, it's gonna outlive me.
I think each barrel is a world unto itself, and trying to predict it's life-cycle is an exercise in frustration. Some shoot, some don't. Some die of old age, some die young. About the only precautions I know to take are to not shoot it too hot, and to be careful with the cleaning rod.
Mike