What Would You Do About This New Barrel?

There are times when I wish I was not limited to 1 swipe at the like button.

The rifling looks fine, just the machine work for chambering. If the barrel were mine I would make a max length gauge by cutting a case 80% or so lengthwise and insert a bullet just barely into the case. Slide that gently into your barrel and see what things look like. If your shorter than a standard OAL I would send it back. If your longer than standard length I would probably send it back, but only if it were excessive. If it’s in the normal range, shoot the snot out of it and get a solid feel for accuracy and reliability before making any decisions.

Hartkopf said:

Then they just gripe. Should we all just gripe about ammo prices?

Is that all THR is good for now?

Click to expand...

LOL

In 2021, online forums are the local cafe/diner, coffee/tea house, tavern, bar, town square, various club houses, etc. where people used to gather to "discuss/gripe" about life. Thankfully, we have a wonderful group of staff/moderators/admin who have devoted significant part of their valuable personal/family time to provide a "civil 2A oriented" online forum so we can exercise our First Amendment right to free speech.

You want to discuss/gripe about non-2A oriented topics, particularly politics? Well, THR admin (Derek/gunguy on secondary forum) even thought about that and created NoTechTyranny forum where just about "anything goes" other than mindless spam and "griping" is actually well tolerated - https://notechtyranny.com/index.php

My sentiment is people won't stop "griping" about life (I mean, it's only "human" to complain about something, right? ) and I don't expect people's posts on any online forum to change much. Shortage you say? Have you been on iboat, various car forums and even wife's Backyard Chicken forum and everybody is experiencing shortage and they are all "griping".

I recall in past shortages where NOTHING was in stock and we were ALL "griping" that NOTHING WAS IN STOCK. I repeat, NOTHING (Gun related) WAS IN STOCK!

This time, shortage was coupled with unprecedented historic Covid-19 that severely restricted worker availability and through HEROIC efforts by various gun related manufacturers, I am just glad that we are able to find ANYTHING IN STOCK and things are beginning to appear back in stock/shelves.

Perhaps barrel manufacturers could have taken the extra time to inspect each barrel for metal "flashing" or change out the reamer more frequently (If they could find reamers IN STOCK ) so reaming of start of rifling was cut more cleanly. But that would take more time and then perhaps barrels would be OUT OF STOCK. So if the barrel manufacturer made an operational decision during Covid staff shortage to manufacture more barrels as long as dummy test rounds fully chambered, I could see the manufacturer choosing to prefer shipping out additional barrels so their customers would see them IN STOCK.

During my lifetime, I spent over $180,000 on gun related stuff and have been treated very well by various manufacturers/vendors customer service, even when error was on my part. I believe if OP was not satisfied with accuracy or appearance of metal flashing of the conversion barrel, contact with barrel manufacture customer service would result in several options favorable to OP from barrel replacement with cleaner reaming of start of rifling, replacement with non-reamed barrel or refund/purchase of additional barrel at discount, etc.

But until OP contacts customer service, members on THR will continues to "discuss/gripe" what OP should have done.

BTW, regards to my two Bear Creek Arsenal conversion barrels with metal "flashing" ... I am very happy with their accuracy and "drop in" operation in my Gen3 Glock 22. I won't be contacting customer service.

And my sentiment of BCA? Well, my 18" .223 Wylde AR has produced smaller than 1" 10 shot groups at 100 yards and I have built several 18" .223 Wylde ARs (Stainless and Nitride) since for friends/family and just this morning, built another 16" .223 Wylde stainless upper for my BIL as birthday present.

I am a happy customer.

Me gripe? Holes on target speak volumes.

Hartkopf said:

My thought was that this barrel (and possibly the whole lot), had the debur/finishing step omitted, accidentally or not. But this might be what the manufacture considers finished. It's probably not worth returning based on everyone's responses.

Click to expand...

My opinion is that it is a mark left by the machining tool. So the problem is their tool or the speed they use. I would bet that the same mark is present on all 9mm barrels produced by this manufacturer. You yourself admit that it is a mid-low cost product, so you cannot expect there to be the same production attention reserved for higher-end products. If the accuracy is in line with that of other similar 9mm pistols in your possession or is otherwise in line with the accuracy you usually get with a pistol, I'll live with it.

@Hartkopf I admire the fact that you inspected the barrel of a Glock after only 25 shots. You have provided us all with a learning opportunity. If everything was going as advertised, I would have gone through much more ammunition before I cleaned and inspected anything.

ontarget said:

Op, if you are anything like me, that barrel will haunt you until you either send it back or try to clean it up yourself.
Personally, I would try to clean it up myself, but if it was not coming out good enough to stop invading my dreams I would probably send it back.
I do try to remind myself that in many cases I get what I pay for (and I am very much Dutch) so that usually leads to alot of tinkering as opposed to going first class to begin with.

Click to expand...

So much to agree with here. Especially the part about getting my what I pay for. With that in mind, and as you admitted this wasn't a top end barrel, if it shoots at a level commensurate with the price, I'd try to live with it. Calling the company isn't a bad idea. Please keep us informed whatever the outcome.

Poor workmanship plain and simple, send it back! That's an example of a machine shop trying to squeeze as many barrels out of a chamber reamer as they can.

"Poor workmanship."

Or is it?

Or does the manufacturer just put their efforts into where it really matters and not waste time (and money) on where it doesn't?

Not totally relevant, but I spent the better part of 30 years as an auto mechanic and I have lots of experience looking at parts that look rough all over. Except for where it really matters, like bearing and mating surfaces. Even on $140,000 Mercedes Benz AMG cars.

Think about a revolver. In a revolver, the bullet has to pass over a gap - A GAP - and then get pushed into perfect alignment by the forcing cone. Yet accuracy somehow doesn't suffer.

Yes, any discrepancy will be exceedingly small but so is what we're looking at here.

Without scientific testing we can't really be sure but being as how this apparent tooling mark is at the leading edge of the rifling I don't think it is going to affect accuracy at all. Or at least in any meaningful way. The bullet has the whole rest of the length of the barrel to get straightened out.

Perhaps we're looking at the difference between a $140,000 SL55 and a $3,000,000 + Bugatti.

That's why I asked "what actual issue are you experiencing."

bdickens said:

"Poor workmanship."

Or is it?

Or does the manufacturer just put their efforts into where it really matters and not waste time (and money) on where it doesn't?

Not totally relevant, but I spent the better part of 30 years as an auto mechanic and I have lots of experience looking at parts that look rough all over. Except for where it really matters, like bearing and mating surfaces. Even on $140,000 Mercedes Benz AMG cars.

Think about a revolver. In a revolver, the bullet has to pass over a gap - A GAP - and then get pushed into perfect alignment by the forcing cone. Yet accuracy somehow doesn't suffer.

Yes, any discrepancy will be exceedingly small but so is what we're looking at here.

Without scientific testing we can't really be sure but being as how this apparent tooling mark is at the leading edge of the rifling I don't think it is going to affect accuracy at all. Or at least in any meaningful way. The bullet has the whole rest of the length of the barrel to get straightened out.

Perhaps we're looking at the difference between a $140,000 SL55 and a $3,000,000 + Bugatti.

That's why I asked "what actual issue are you experiencing."

Click to expand...

You're correct, your auto experience is irrelevant.
If/when the OP shoots lead through that barrel he'll see where their efforts really matter. That poorly cut leade will strip and buildup lead which will send accuracy south, make cleaning a PITA, and could eventually swell the barrel as a result.

The analogy still fits, it’s just that where it counts for a barrel is everywhere. The exterior must be correct in dimensions to lock up, smooth enough to not damage the slide, feed ramp able to guide different bullet profiles. The interior must be bored true, rifling and chamber cut to correct dimensions, crown uniformed and free of damage.

Unlike engine parts that can look rough on the outside and still run 300k miles, barrels have not much wiggle room if they’re going to be acceptable, and in this, and every barrel, chambers and leade are important.

Skylerbone said:

barrels ... if they’re going to be acceptable ... chambers and leade are important.

Click to expand...

And holes on target speak volumes.

BC17A said:

You're correct, your auto experience is irrelevant

Click to expand...

Well, no it's not irrelevant. That's not what I said. What I said was not totally relevant, which is pretty much the same as saying partially relevant. It's relevant at least to why I'm asking the question. Unlike some of the other posters with their knee jerk responses one way or the other, I'm wondering if anyone has actually tested this.

BC17A said:

That poorly cut leade will strip and buildup lead

Click to expand...

Will it? The pictures are pretty unclear. Is that a nick, or is it a burr? If it is a burr, then yeah of course it'll strip bad off of a bullet. But if it's a nick I don't see how that's going to happen.

Skylerbone said:

The interior must be bored true, rifling and chamber cut to correct dimensions, crown uniformed and free of damage.

Click to expand...

That's pretty obvious. But what I am asking is if what the OP is showing is a true defect or if it just offends some people's sense of aesthetics.

Certainly, contacting the manufacturer is in order. They very well may say it is unacceptable and offer to replace it. Or they may reply that it is within standards.

I think the OP was only wrong in not inspecting the barrel before installation. Again, harkening back to my "irrelevant" prior experience, I can't count the number of times I have looked over a part right out of the box and found it broken - or even used.

But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. The only way to know for sure is through scientific testing. Has anyone ever done this? Or is this one of those things that people "just know?"

A brief search really didn't turn up anything.

bdickens said:

But, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. The only way to know for sure is through scientific testing. Has anyone ever done this? Or is this one of those things that people "just know?"

Click to expand...

The “scientific testing” has been done for centuries now. No need to wonder if it will lead up, or if it’s “right” or if the manufacturer meant to leave it there as just as good as cleaned up, they did not and it is not.

If the entire exterior were pitted, I would not expound on the exciting possibilities with it holding more lubrication in the “pores”, I would reject it. In this case I would try to clean it up. There is no positive to it being there. None. Zero. Only negative.

Skylerbone said:

the manufacturer meant to leave it there as just as good as cleaned up, they did not and it is not.

Click to expand...

Or if the manufacturer determined that reasonably acceptable accuracy and reliability were possible, and it was highly unlikely anyone would inspect their barrel so closely after 25 rounds, if ever.

Manufacturing flaws happen and QC misses things. Sometimes the stars align and these things occur simultaneously and we end up with a dud. There are of course also companies that make "good enough" stuff. If the OP bought a $50 barrel with $500 expectations, then the barrel falls short and he may return it forevermore and not get anything better.

If it's a high end barrel with a reputation of top-shelf quality then he should contact CS. I don't care if it's only an aesthetic issue, a performance issue, safety issue, or not really an issue at all. People who take pride in their work won't sell "good enough".

Skylerbone said:

The “scientific testing” has been done for centuries now.

Click to expand...

Where might one find the results published?

bdickens said:

Where might one find the results published?

Click to expand...

Guiness perhaps? Or check the match postings for event winners and find the same list of barrel manufacturers being used to win those events. Call Shilen and ask if garbage left in a barrel helps accuracy. Call ANY manufacturer and ask. This is either a QC issue or intentionally sloppy work.

It’s barrel steel that should have been removed. It’s harder than any bullet being sent past it. It will cause damage. Damaged bullets aren’t accurate bullets. Ballistics. Science. See? Yes there are frosted, dark, or pitted barrels that are still accurate but this is not that. Don’t be obtuse and defend what is clearly an unwanted inclusion.

Look, I am not being obtuse or "defending" anything. I am asking a serious question because the obvious answer is not always the correct one. If you had bothered to really understand what I was asking, you would have seen that I am questioning both sides.

This is a topic that appears quite a few times. The answers are all opinion and conjecture. I have never once seen an answer given based on scientific evidence which is why I am asking if this is one of those things that "everyone knows" or if it has been tested. That's all I am asking.

Once again, I would have inspected the barrel before installing it and then contacted the manufacturer right away. It sure doesn't look right.

But since this topic periodically comes up, I think it would be helpful to have a real answer. Does it really matter in terms of performance? And at what level. A real answer. Not opinion. Not speculation. Not conjecture. Evidence. Objective, repeatable evidence.

One example is that "everybody knows" that damage to the muzzle crown affects accuracy. One guy actually tested that idea.

https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2017/1/18/will-damage-to-a-rifles-crown-hamper-accuracy/

In a nutshell, he found that yes it does, but not as much as people think until the damage is beyond what is likely to occur.

Once again, I draw on my "irrelevant" automotive experience. "Everybody knows" that a dirty air filter hurts your fuel mileage, right?

WRONG!

Someone who actually understands how modern closed-loop fuel systems work got to thinking and decided to test that idea.

"Results show that clogging the air filter has no significant effect on the fuel economy of the newer
vehicles (all fuel injected with closed-loop control and one equipped with MDS). The engine control
systems were able to maintain the desired AFR regardless of intake restrictions, and therefore fuel
consumption was not increased. The carbureted engine did show a decrease in fuel economy with
increasing restriction. However, the level of restriction required to cause a substantial (10–15%) decrease in fuel economy (such as that cited in the literature3,4) was so severe that the vehicle was almost undrivable. Acceleration performance on all vehicles was improved with a clean air filter."

https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/air_filter_effects_02_26_2009.pdf

bdickens said:

Look, I am not being obtuse or "defending" anything. I am asking a serious question because the obvious answer is not always the correct one. If you had bothered to really understand what I was asking, you would have seen that I am questioning both sides.

This is a topic that appears quite a few times. The answers are all opinion and conjecture. I have never once seen an answer given based on scientific evidence which is why I am asking if this is one of those things that "everyone knows" or if it has been tested. That's all I am asking.

Once again, I would have inspected the barrel before installing it and then contacted the manufacturer right away. It sure doesn't look right.

But since this topic periodically comes up, I think it would be helpful to have a real answer. Does it really matter in terms of performance? And at what level. A real answer. Not opinion. Not speculation. Not conjecture. Evidence. Objective, repeatable evidence.

One example is that "everybody knows" that damage to the muzzle crown affects accuracy. One guy actually tested that idea.

https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2017/1/18/will-damage-to-a-rifles-crown-hamper-accuracy/

In a nutshell, he found that yes it does, but not as much as people think until the damage is beyond what is likely to occur.

Once again, I draw on my "irrelevant" automotive experience. "Everybody knows" that a dirty air filter hurts your fuel mileage, right?

WRONG!

Someone who actually understands how modern closed-loop fuel systems work got to thinking and decided to test that idea.

"Results show that clogging the air filter has no significant effect on the fuel economy of the newer
vehicles (all fuel injected with closed-loop control and one equipped with MDS). The engine control
systems were able to maintain the desired AFR regardless of intake restrictions, and therefore fuel
consumption was not increased. The carbureted engine did show a decrease in fuel economy with
increasing restriction. However, the level of restriction required to cause a substantial (10–15%) decrease in fuel economy (such as that cited in the literature3,4) was so severe that the vehicle was almost undrivable. Acceleration performance on all vehicles was improved with a clean air filter."

https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/air_filter_effects_02_26_2009.pdf

Click to expand...

Are there scientific reasons to choose a GM 12-bolt over a Dana 35 for an off-road vehicle? Do you spend a single second wondering which would hold up better? I bet you already know.

Specs. For the same reason I’ve never placed any occlusion in my barrel, added and unwanted rough STEEL is SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN to be harder than copper encased lead. Damaged bullets do not fly true because damage destabilizes them. Don’t know what more evidence you seek.

So says the guy arguing elsewhere that a .22 is effective for self defense.

Deleted

bdickens said:

So says the guy arguing elsewhere that a .22 is effective for self defense.

Click to expand...

And it is in the correct context, not in the zombies on meth nightmare scenario you and others choose for context.

The internet is forever and I saved before you deleted. Do please explain that one. Ballistics aren’t a thing?

Guys, this is the "High Road" ... Good grief.

OP already stated the conversion barrel purchased was "low to mid" level and that may explain why the manufacturer could have decided to send out the barrel with "metal flashing" from the reamer.

It is my opinion that OP can further test the barrel to see if accuracy from the barrel is acceptable with whatever ammunition OP uses to determine if the barrel should be kept or customer service contacted for replacement or refund. But I do not believe OP has gotten back to us as to what the findings/results are.
So us arguing/speculating what should be done is irrelevant until OP responds back.

Skylerbone said:

View attachment 1032863

The internet is forever and I saved before you deleted. Do please explain that one. Ballistics aren’t a thing?

Click to expand...

You're not good at logic, are you? I really didn't want to keep pursuing this but since you went there:

Circular reasoning is where the premise of your argument assumes your conclusion. Which is exactly what you did here .

"Damaged bullets do not fly true" and "damage destabilizes them" are essentially the same statement.

Now, before you get any further wound around the axle let me say I am inclined to agree with your conclusion, its the logic that is faulty.

Logically correct would be something like "bullets must be uniformly made in order to fly true. Damage to a bullet that deforms it will affect it's accuracy." Here, the argument begins with a major premise that can be proven or disproven. The minor premise "certain kinds of damage will deform a bullet" is implied. Both lead to the conclusion about accuracy which must be true if the premises are true.

Since we know that manufacturing tolerances come into play and no bullet can be perfectly uniform either with itself or with others, and since we know that other factors affect accuracy as well, the question becomes how deformed does a bullet have to be before accuracy is significantly affected?

I suspect the answer depends on multiple factors such as diameter, weight, bullet profile and shooting context. For long range precision shooting, a smaller amount of damage will likely make a greater difference than for defensive pistolcraft.