You did well if you bought it.
Quick question: How to tell a hammer forged barrel?
- Thread starter Heir Kommt Die Sonne
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
Heir Kommt Die Sonne
Member
Not yet but you're saying i should?
rbernie
Contributing Member
It's easier just to use a bore-scope; the CHF barrel will look distinctly different compared to cut rifled barrels.
Demi-human
maybe likes firearms a little bit…
OP
OP
Heir Kommt Die Sonne
Member
Well of course you should!
Muhahahaa.
Yea but I already got two
JFrank
Member
Kids today..
No, Two is one. One is none. If you want two, you need three.
OP
OP
Heir Kommt Die Sonne
Member
Heey at least i'm not new..Kids today..
Well, then we'll let you off the hook.
gotboostvr
Member
If I was in your shoes, I woulda grabbed the Colt Trooper and never given the old upper a second thought.
lysanderxiii
Member
cdb1
Member
I thought the same thing.
cdb1
Member
I may be naive or just plain dumb but it doesn’t matter to me whether a barrel is CHF, button, cut, micro-groove, etc.
The only rifling that perks my ears a little is polygonal.
The only rifling that perks my ears a little is polygonal.
Skylerbone
Member
If you cannot afford the full monty you could always order a Ruger 10/22 target barrel. My biggest problem with CHF is that if machined after, there will be residual stress that must be relieved. How that is addressed from manufacturer to manufacturer varies.
lysanderxiii
Member
Actually, polygonal rifling was adopted by a certain Austrian company (and others) primarily because it is easier to do with rotary cold forging.
CHF and Rotary Swaging do not like sharp edges, it is hard to pound a crisp 0.004" high step from across half an inch of steel. And, 90 degree steps are next to impossible. How much pressure and how fast you can go requires a lot of experience and good results only are possible in a narrow range. Most cold forged barrels have a slight relief on the lands to facilitate manufacture. However, something like Metford or polygonal rifling are easily done and are much more forgiving if you stray away from the optimum.
Cannibul
Member
I have that same barrel in blue. 20" long. It's an absolute beast.
Coal Dragger
member
Aside from the exterior spiral marks on a CHF barrel that is hammered to final profile, and not using a bore scope there is not any good way to tell unless the barrel is marked.
Most barrels that are made by this process for use in AR-15/M4 pattern weapons come from Fabrique Nationale, or Daniel Defense. Knights Armament also cold hammer forges their own barrels, and so does HK both of which to my knowledge do so only for their own products. The biggest by far in output for other brands is FN. Invariably all of the barrels from any of these makers will be marked with the chamber, twist rate, and CHF on the barrel noting cold hammer forged. My DD and KAC are both marked.
Any older upper you come across is just about guaranteed to not use a cold hammer forged barrel. That method of barrel making wasn’t common in the US until more recently and not widespread in AR’s until after 2004 or so.
The process of cold hammer forging an appropriate alloy yields a very tough wear resistant barrel. Some on here may want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it’s not true, but the 800lb Gorilla of M4 users, and other full auto toys with all kinds of money and millions of rounds of testing has determined that cold hammer forged barrels last longer than non cold hammer forged barrels. That would be Uncle Sam, there’s a reason the USMC’s new rifle runs a CHF barrel, and the USASOC carbines for the Army are also running CHF barrels, and that all the belt fed MG’s in inventory run CHF barrels. It’s not due to cost savings.
In fact there’s an article out there somewhere detailing FN’s CHF process and the engineer being interviewed flatly states that it’s more costly to cold hammer a barrel than it is for them to button rifle a barrel. They do both because at that time they had M16 and M4 contracts and the TDP called for button rifling.
Most barrels that are made by this process for use in AR-15/M4 pattern weapons come from Fabrique Nationale, or Daniel Defense. Knights Armament also cold hammer forges their own barrels, and so does HK both of which to my knowledge do so only for their own products. The biggest by far in output for other brands is FN. Invariably all of the barrels from any of these makers will be marked with the chamber, twist rate, and CHF on the barrel noting cold hammer forged. My DD and KAC are both marked.
Any older upper you come across is just about guaranteed to not use a cold hammer forged barrel. That method of barrel making wasn’t common in the US until more recently and not widespread in AR’s until after 2004 or so.
The process of cold hammer forging an appropriate alloy yields a very tough wear resistant barrel. Some on here may want to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it’s not true, but the 800lb Gorilla of M4 users, and other full auto toys with all kinds of money and millions of rounds of testing has determined that cold hammer forged barrels last longer than non cold hammer forged barrels. That would be Uncle Sam, there’s a reason the USMC’s new rifle runs a CHF barrel, and the USASOC carbines for the Army are also running CHF barrels, and that all the belt fed MG’s in inventory run CHF barrels. It’s not due to cost savings.
In fact there’s an article out there somewhere detailing FN’s CHF process and the engineer being interviewed flatly states that it’s more costly to cold hammer a barrel than it is for them to button rifle a barrel. They do both because at that time they had M16 and M4 contracts and the TDP called for button rifling.
Gordon
Member
If it is a original Trooper based on the Python Frame and not a "new" Trooper Mk. 3 from the 70s on which was simplified and had the first MIM parts. They are not bad but don't compare with the original troopers.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...a-colt-trooper-and-the-trooper-mk-iii.731141/
lysanderxiii
Member
Then FN must be doing it wrong.
Rock Island Arsenal bought a GFN rotary forge a few years back and did a pilot run to examine the cost and quality possible from such a machine.
For 1000 barrels:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conventional . . . . . . . . . Rotary
Tooling*. . . . . . . . . . . . . $7,551 . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 14,010
Tool Maintenance . . . . $28,808 . . . . . . . . . . . $ 14,010
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 36,356 . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28,020
The manpower requirements were much lower too:
Total Time to Complete a Barrel Blank:
conventional: 0.7337 hours
rotary: 0.3592 hours
If the government can make CHF barrels at 3/4 the price of conventional barrels, then a good well run company should be able to do even better.
EDIT:
The report concludes - "Improved grain structure, increased toughness,
better corrosion resistance, and finer surface finish . . . are possible."
(my emphasis)
If the proper care is not taken when setting up the machine, you don't get a better barrel.
________________
* Tooling-
Conventional: roughing reamer ($1,265), finishing reamer (2 @ $603), seat reamer ($967), rifling button ($2,937), bore reamer (3 @ $392).
Rotary: mandrels ($9,662), hammers ($4,348).
Last edited:
cdb1
Member
I rest my case.
cdb1
Member
I’ve always heard FN AR barrels are outstanding.
JFrank
Member
My Tikka has a hammer forge IIRC
It shoots pretty good...
It shoots pretty good...
David Hoback
member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2019
- Messages
- 870
FINALLY!! Someone else who hasn’t been drinking the Koolaid! Eureka! There is nothing magic about them. It’s just another way of making barrels. And YES! It is quite cost saving! Yet they don’t pass that on in the AR market. Funny thing... every single one of the Romanian AK kits I bought 15 years ago, ALL had CHF barrels. Huh. Weren’t accurate in the least, but sure did last a long time. Though....,,I always coughed that up to the Chrome lined bores! Oh, and I still do!
Nothing new about them...just “NEW“ to AR’s. Like the gas piston. Too many get excited and start touring these things as the latest & greatest. Of course with absolutely no evidence.
See, there is a misconception in the firearms world. It also exists(started in fact) in the knifemaking world. The ignorant believe that “Forging” steel somehow compacts it’s mass into a tighter area. Well, this ya true when starting with CAST steel. Which typically has many air voids. Barrels as we know them today, are NOT cast. They are made either by machining or extrusion, which itself is a type of forging(heat & pressure). Every barrel, whether being button or cut rifled, or via CHF has already been forged! Same goes for the blade steel which can be purchased to make knives. It’s already been forged by huge powerful machines under several Thousand tons of pressure! Forging this already forged material does not “tighten“ the grain structure, or compress the material. This is a widely believed falsity..told by people look to make a buck & believed by those ignorant enough to pay them for the lie!
A certain barrel maker in California even went so far as to say that every CHF barrels he works on is much more difficult to cut on his lathe. Well, yes.... steel which has been WORK hardened, usually IS more difficult to cut over the typically annealed condition that blanks are in...DUH! Making this guy sound foolish was all too easy on CalDumbs. But I digress.
Other than a stamping on the outside saying “CHF”, I don’t believe there is any way to tell. Not even a bore scope would give you the answer. Maybe after just being finished, but I doubt after polishing which takes place...and certainly not after Chrome lining or Nitriding.
David Hoback
member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2019
- Messages
- 870
For the record, I’m using a Ballistic Advantage Premium Black series barrel. 416R SS & Nitride QPQ in & out. I specifically chose this barrel. I could have used any, but chose this. It shoots SUB/MOA with my reloads & will last a whole lot longer than what rounds I’ll put through it.
DustyGmt
Member
I remember a while back somebody stating unequivocally that the ruger 5.56 was hands down better than the M&P Sport simply because the Ruger was CHF. I think that folks putting on for the CHF sure have done a good job convincing others there just simply is no other way.
I remember agonizing about which BCM upper I was going to get, I was prepared to spend some money obviously but as soon as I decided to go with the enhanced lightweight bbl contour I ultimately decided on the standard, non CHF bbl, not because I wanted to save $75 but because I didnt think it was any real gain over their standard chrome lined bbl.
I'm no metallurgical expert, but I read enough from people who are to get a consensus and I still dont really know where or why or in what instance a CHF bbl is preferred or needed, or if it's a buzz word that just gets folks excited. Basically what I took away from it was that it "could" reduce wear/erosion in sustained, long, repeated courses of full auto fire. I know the Filthy 14 wasnt a CHF bbl, that was a good testimonial of measured, documented performance expectations in my opinion....
I remember agonizing about which BCM upper I was going to get, I was prepared to spend some money obviously but as soon as I decided to go with the enhanced lightweight bbl contour I ultimately decided on the standard, non CHF bbl, not because I wanted to save $75 but because I didnt think it was any real gain over their standard chrome lined bbl.
I'm no metallurgical expert, but I read enough from people who are to get a consensus and I still dont really know where or why or in what instance a CHF bbl is preferred or needed, or if it's a buzz word that just gets folks excited. Basically what I took away from it was that it "could" reduce wear/erosion in sustained, long, repeated courses of full auto fire. I know the Filthy 14 wasnt a CHF bbl, that was a good testimonial of measured, documented performance expectations in my opinion....
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
