Tuning Why do others not copy FX liner twist rates ?

Patents. That would be my guess. I am thinking that there may be properties of the rifling produced in this manner vs traditional methods. I don't know for sure, but generally, patents and patent law stop other manufacturers from blatantly copying certain ideas without compensating the patent holder via licensing. IANAL, but I think that's how it works.

Response deleted.

Edit: you edited your original post and title to ask an entirely different question than the original one. You initially asked why other companies don't copy FX liners, now you're asking about twist rates. Different question. 

Much of this work was done far before FX did anything. Liners are not a better barrel, just extremely cheap to manufacturer. Some have been shooting slugs long before they were the cool thing to do.

I saved my original response to your question about why other manufacturers aren't using FX type liners (in case the discussion circled back to it). I'll add it back in now that Dana has chimed in and brought up some of my same points. It appears that Dana and I share some of the same thoughts about liners. 

While the FX marketing team so generously informs us that FX liners do well with slugs, the liners come with their own set of problems. 

While it may or may not be true that they in fact shoot slugs better than actual barrels made by LW or CZ, they very obviously have a problem with being rigid enough, and able to be affixed to the gun in a sufficient manner as to not allow wandering aim points. This is evidenced by the preponderance of posts here related to shifting poi, "harmonic balance", guys epoxying the straws into carbon fiber tubes, various methods of tensioning, etc. 

The recent uptick in "harmonic balance" posts makes me smile each time I read a new post about it. Yeah, harmonic tuning is a real thing, but it has become a sort of a tongue in cheek term for, "how the heck to I get my little thin-walled FX liner to shoot to the same place consistently?"

FXs game plan of moving from the LW barrels they used in the past to their own in house liners was likely influenced by multiple factors. First, and probably most admirable: they wanted a way to change twist rates, chokes, leades, etc for testing more easily than ordering blanks from LW with all the spec'd changes. Second, and avarice-based (IMO): economics. There's no way that thin little straw can cost FX as much as an outsourced barrel from LW. Sure, FX likely incurred some initial costs to acquire the equipment to make the straws, but at this point, a couple years in, I'd take a strong bet that tooling cost amortized long ago and they're at a point where they're saving big $$$ over buying real barrels. 

And finally, slugs aren't everything. I've gone down that rabbit hole and have yet to find a slug that consistently and reliably outshoots a good BC pellet like the .22 JSB Monster RD. To somewhat prove your point though, all of my testing has been done with real barrels. I'm in the camp that if shooting slugs accurately requires an FX liner, and the inherent problems that come with that, I'll stick to pellets from barrels that don't have me chasing my tail every time I get the gun out to play. So, I don't think other manufacturers have adopted FX liners because they want to protect their reputations. 

It's more than twist rates. The FX design also includes a choke that might not be easily reproducible. I remember Dubber (who worked extensively on the FX Barrel lineup) said that when developing the original slug barrel, failure after failure after failure until they stumbled on a choke that worked and suddenly things started to work. Much more to barrel design than twist rates

..Now my point is , where all the field work is done by TX and Matt Dubber in regard of optimum twist rates in modern airgunning with succes. Why do the traditional barrel makers not bring copies of the twist rates on the market fast...

Click to expand...

You obviously have a good understanding of the FX liner vs traditional cut rifling. But one thing which isn't going to translate over 1:1 from an FX liner to a rifled barrel is how effectively a specific rifling will impart spin onto a pellet. For example the pellet spin velocity coming out of an FX liner with, say a 1 in 18 twist, may be very different than the spin velocity coming out of a traditional cut rifled barrel (or even a polygon barrel) which has that same 1 in 18 twist rate. We already know (or have been told on the 'Net) that the FX liner with its 'rifling' pressed from the exterior, provides faster pellet speed and imparts less pellet deformation as compared to a traditional cut rifled barrel.

So we will know from that information that one can't just use the published FX twist rate in their traditionally rifled barrel, but would have to go through the whole R&D process with differing dimensions and twist rates to try and duplicate the pellet spin rate and velocity to duplicate what comes out of an FX muzzle.

Additionally many manufacturer may have historically found that their guns are best accepted by the masses when they have used choked barrels - another difference from the FX system. Now what do they do? Likely stay with the equation which has worked in the past for them, instead of trying to immediately duplicate what the 'new kid' is doing.

I believe most air rifle makers are selling everything they make, and faster than they can make them! So, I expect there just isn't much interest right now to develop specialized slug barrels for a market that is much smaller than traditional pellet barrels. 

Regarding the FX liner system, it offers some advantages, as mentioned above. But for dependable performance, I don't believe they will ever match a traditional, solid barrel. My experience with FX is limited to one Royale 400, and one Crown, far from a statistically sound sample. The Royale shoots great every day, regardless of conditions and handling, POI never changes, never needs cleaning. None of that was true for the Crown. Granted, I'm old fashioned and like things simple, and I'm sure the liner system pleases many people. But I digress from the question. I expect the other makers are well aware of the additional challenges presented by a liner system, and with limited ability or need to expand production, it's just not worth the investment to do it. That may change in the future.

One particular individual that I will leave names out of had a huge part in development in the slugs and barrels. Once the desired results were achieved that individual got thrown in a corner with no compensation. Fortunately bigger and far superior technology is coming as far a shooting slugs. The barrel systems are just a small part of the puzzle. 

I'm really surprised that the industry has not developed a .177 slug in the 17 gr range like the 17 HMR design. Just look at that bullet. With a twist rate and a gun able to push that light slug faster than we are accustomed to, wind drift would certainly be much less. JMT

I'm really surprised that the industry has not developed a .177 slug in the 17 gr range like the 17 HMR design. Just look at that bullet. With a twist rate and a gun able to push that light slug faster than we are accustomed to, wind drift would certainly be much less. JMT

Click to expand...

You can get many weights & base types of .177 slugs from Griffin Airgun Ammo.

Paul

I never had an FX but I have shot several of them and I have talked with old timers on the range that have been shooting for years using slugs. A few use the slug liners but a couple of them have bought cz barrel blanks with a particular twist they figured they needed and put them on the most solid action they could. These are totally custom guns and feel like a firearm when you handle them. Those guys are shooting 30 cal and either 257 or 243. It's been a while since I talked to them. Anyway thier guns shot way better than the FX guns. Probably cost 3 times more but I just feel like alot of folks here think FX is the best ever. Maybe they are maybe not. I plan on getting a rawhm1000x before my first fx. Those barrel liners really do look like they have poi issues. Maybe you can fix it with barrel tuners and epoxy but at the end of the day I like value and turnkey quality right out of the box and reliability. I can't tell you how many times my friend brought his marauder to the range because something was leaking on his impact or he needed to tweak something on it. I just want a hunting gun that works. I really like my unregulated airforce condor for the 39.3g Neilson specialty slugs. It's maybe an moa or slightly larger group at 75 yards but decent hunting platform and always holds air and functions. Anyway this has been a fascinating read. I didn't know other people felt like those fx barrels had any flaws or setbacks at all. Everyone I've ever heard always says fx slug liners are the best ever. Glad to know others have at least thought about it. Honestly that and the weight of the impact has kept me from getting an fx. I actually really like the dreamline as a pellet gun. 

There is one big mistake in this thread focusing on a single piece price.

You need to estimate the cost of - let say fabricating 10K or 20K or 50K barrels over five years, estimate the cost of the entirety in the process, (R&D, machinery, materials, labour), the overhead cost accumulated over per say ten years....

Anybody with - metal manufacturing engineering background can chime in - the FX liners (actually everything all the parts that are connected to a barrel tube assembly) are not cheaper from ordinary any other better brand barrels.

A good quality rifled barrel you can make on a $5K gundrill, but for the FX liner the CNC (as a process) will cost many many times more plus the arms and legs and a liver and kidneys before you even make a first cut in a metal...To develop that kind of machine first you need a courage to burn a lot of money trying to proof you were right with the idea.

There is one big mistake in this thread focusing on a single piece price.

You need to estimate the cost of - let say fabricating 10K or 20K or 50K barrels over five years, estimate the cost of the entirety in the process, (R&D, machinery, materials, labour), the overhead cost accumulated over per say ten years....

Anybody with - metal manufacturing engineering background can chime in - the FX liners (actually everything all the parts that are connected to a barrel tube assembly) are not cheaper from ordinary any other better brand barrels.

A good quality rifled barrel you can make on a $5K gundrill, but for the FX liner the CNC (as a process) will cost many many times more plus the arms and legs and a liver and kidneys before you even make a first cut in a metal...To develop that kind of machine first you need a courage to burn a lot of money trying to proof you were right with the idea.

Click to expand...

+1 on this.

My guess is FX spent a ton on R&D and then a ton on expensive machineries. Their method and process along with their super expensive machines give them the ability to quickly change twist rate and choke with simple programming. This gives them unparalleled flexibility, people complain FX comes out with yet another liner to buy then turn around and complain other people’s barrel never change. 

BSA and few other manufactures do have traditional barrel making shops. While not bad but it is extremely difficult to change anything. 


FX is like Tesla of Airguns, always improving and always investing in newer technologies and machineries.