Talk:Rifling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

I seem to remember that there is a reason (more than just tradition) why modern rifling uses a right-hand spin. Anyone else remember?

And does anyone have a good picture down a barrel?Rossami 23:55 15 May 2003 (UTC)

- Agreed, a picture or diagram is definitely needed for this article. -lommer 23:49, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I posted an image relevant to this "Riflilng " discussion. the image is titled "marlin 35 rem 2". --Rickochet 13:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rifling twist

As far as I know, right hand twists are not used exclusively. I once had it explained to me, that it using left or right twist depended on which hemisphere of the earth the barrel would be used in. (i.e. left twists for southern hemisphere) and that the reason for this was to preferential compensation of the earths magnetic effect. I was told this by a guy who was a sniper, and he believed it, but I cannot say definitively whether its true or not.

If the hemisphere thing were true (which it isn't) then you'd also need a different twist for shooting east and west. Right hand is most common, but some makers, such as Colt and many British makes, use left hand. As for the sniper, I'll bet he wasn't actually a sniper; 99% of people who claim they are snipers and/or special forces are not. If you really want to test a sniper-wanna-be, ask him how much holdover Billy Dixon needed to hit that Kiowa... scot 16:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

== Also ask the sniper for the caliber of rifle Billy Dixon used in Adobe Walls and then ask him if that Kiowa heard the shot! --Rickochet 01:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polygonal rifling

I yanked some invalid looking claims from the polygonal rifling section. Here's why:

• If polygonal rifling were actually more accurate, why aren't all the custom 1911 gunsmiths using it on bullseye guns, and why don't you see it in benchrest rifles, where accuracy (i.e. fractions of a minute of arc) is a realy concern?

Polygonal rifling to my knowledge can only be manufactured by Hammer forging method which is VERY expensive. It is more cost effective to broach or button rifle a custom barrel and then finish with a lapping process to remove as many imperfections as possible.

--Rickochet 13:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, hammer forged barrels are CHEAP, once you pay for the megabuck machine--that's why Ruger and other big makers use hammer forged barrels. The hammer forging process gives you get a rifled, profiled, and chambered barrel spit out of the machine every minute or so--about what it takes to broach or button rifle (but not profile) a barrel, and far, far less than a single point cut rifled barrel. You can buy polygonal barrel blanks (Lothar Walther: http://www.lothar-walther.de/html/363.php) but while Walther barrels are used by world class airgun shooters, traditional cut or button rifled barrels from makers like Krieger, Lilja and Shilen are still tops in the benchrest game. You can also make polygonal barrels with a broach or button, all you have to do is cut the tool accordingly. Cut rifled barrels are done in multiple passes, so that's the one technique that is really impractical for polygonal rifling. scot 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Leading is caused by high pressures (such as in magnum cartridges) or gas blowby on a poor seal between barrel and bullet, which cause melting of the lead. You can't claim that polygonal rifling seals better yet leads worse. My speculation is that the polygonal rifling doesn't grip the softer bullets as well, so accuracy will suffer.

scot 16:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] error?

"and in high velocity bullets an excessive twist can cause bullets to literally tear themselves apart under the centrifugal force"

This cannot be correct. The forward linear velocity of the projectile has nothing to do with the centrifugal force needed to keep it together as it spins.

May be James Bond is seen from a camera not from a gun and the circle is an aperture?