Anyone have an informed opinion on 6.5 creedmoor stainless or qpq?

[teamRR]

Putting together a 6.5 creedmoor rifle, will be Aero receivers, probably an MBT 2 stage trigger, and I think a 22 inch criterion barrel. No real need, only shoot out to about 300 yards but just want to one-up my .308 bench rifle version to see if the 6.5 creed is any better first hand I guess.

Question is on the barrel, stainless or QPQ? Anyone have an opinion on differences in MOA or life span? Kinda leaning toward stainless just to maximize accuracy, but then if it's not gonna make a damn difference prefer QPQ for barrel life if nothing else.

Thx in advance!

 

[daekken]

According to Ballistic Advantage, a "Stainless barrel is up to 30% more accurate than its Chrome Moly counterpart as long as you are not continually firing the firearm and heating up the barrel."

Under repeated firing, its longevity decreases and it has a narrower range of acceptable temperatures.

 

[JRT]

Putting together a 6.5 creedmoor rifle, will be Aero receivers, probably an MBT 2 stage trigger, and I think a 22 inch criterion barrel. No real need, only shoot out to about 300 yards but just want to one-up my .308 bench rifle version to see if the 6.5 creed is any better first hand I guess.

Question is on the barrel, stainless or QPQ? Anyone have an opinion on differences in MOA or life span? Kinda leaning toward stainless just to maximize accuracy, but then if it's not gonna make a damn difference prefer QPQ for barrel life if nothing else.

Thx in advance!

Stainless is going to be more accurate. The best advice I can give you is if you only want to go out the 300 yards use a 16 inch barrel. I started my 6.5 bolt gun with a 22 inch barrel and later bought a 16 inch Proof Research carbon barrel. You lose some ballistic performance with the lower velocity but no accuracy at 300 yards. It’s so much more maneuverable with a 16 inch barrel.

 

[teamRR]

Stainless is going to be more accurate. The best advice I can give you is if you only want to go out the 300 yards use a 16 inch barrel. I started my 6.5 bolt gun with a 22 inch barrel and later bought a 16 inch Proof Research carbon barrel. You lose some ballistic performance with the lower velocity but no accuracy at 300 yards. It’s so much more maneuverable with a 16 inch barrel.

I have 2 x 16-inch 7.62/.308 with 2.5x optics, and an 18 inch with a carry handle iron sight. Those are good for a carry or off the shoulder.. then a 20 inch with a variable scope and bipod, good for nothing else other than rested.

This new setup is purely for off a rest, see no point to the caliber beyond that really - is all about being fussy with accuracy, so I don't care if it's a 20 lb rifle..

I get what you are saying and I really love short AR10s just not my goal here.

 

[JRT]

I have 2 x 16-inch 7.62/.308 with 2.5x optics, and an 18 inch with a carry handle iron sight. Those are good for a carry or off the shoulder.. then a 20 inch with a variable scope and bipod, good for nothing else other than rested.

This new setup is purely for off a rest, see no point to the caliber beyond that really - is all about being fussy with accuracy, so I don't care if it's a 20 lb rifle..

I get what you are saying and I really love short AR10s just not my goal here.

Understood, for a bench rifle the 22 makes sense. I hunt with mine, the 22 inch barrel with a suppressor has me at 28 inches. I was catching on everything, I practically had to stoop down going under power lines lol.

 

[teamRR]

Understood, for a bench rifle the 22 makes sense. I hunt with mine, the 22 inch barrel with a suppressor has me at 28 inches. I was catching on everything, I practically had to stoop down going under power lines lol.

Oh no doubt I get that, if I was going to hunt I would be looking at it differently. A big scope alone makes these things real unwieldy.

In the back of my mind, some day I would like to be able to shoot further than the max range I have now. Would like to put something together that beats my .308 version in accuracy, is probably mostly just a good excuse to build another rifle

 

[50wt]

Isnt QPQ a hot salt bath done to either stainless or chromoly ?

Most barrels are stainless , maybe for the machining process ( softer , but gummy ) and its resistance to rusting ( not all grades ).

Look into the cryo treatment also..

 

[teamRR]

Isnt QPQ a hot salt bath done to either stainless or chromoly ?

Most barrels are stainless , maybe for the machining process ( softer , but gummy ) and its resistance to rusting ( not all grades ).

Look into the cryo treatment also..

By QPQ I mean chromoly, wasn't aware they made stainless barrels w/ the coating.

Supposedly, talking these gun part metals, you are actually better off as far as corrosion with the QPQ steel versus uncoated stainless because the steel even uncoated is quite corrosion resistant to begin with and the coating is fairly impervious, while the stainless still can corrode and is directly impacted by the elements.. whatever the case though that is not a concern, I have 0 issues with guns and corrosion.

On the 6.5 creed barrels, at least with Criterion, you get match barrels in stainless uncoated or chromoly coated. Just picking them because I have seen consistent documented good reviews/tests, versus say Aero/BA barrels where results are more mixed.

Read a few things that say the initial difference is so minor that after a few shots the heat resistance of chromoly beats the stainless and that 6.5 creedmoor tends to quickly wear barrels. Wondered if anyone sees this from experience.

 

[PappyM3]

By QPQ I mean chromoly, wasn't aware they made stainless barrels w/ the coating.

Supposedly, talking these gun part metals, you are actually better off as far as corrosion with the QPQ steel versus uncoated stainless because the steel even uncoated is quite corrosion resistant to begin with and the coating is fairly impervious, while the stainless still can corrode and is directly impacted by the elements.. whatever the case though that is not a concern, I have 0 issues with guns and corrosion.

On the 6.5 creed barrels, at least with Criterion, you get match barrels in stainless uncoated or chromoly coated. Just picking them because I have seen consistent documented good reviews/tests, versus say Aero/BA barrels where results are more mixed.

Read a few things that say the initial difference is so minor that after a few shots the heat resistance of chromoly beats the stainless and that 6.5 creedmoor tends to quickly wear barrels. Wondered if anyone sees this from experience.

Yeah, QPQ is different than chrome lined. And while chrome lining is a coating of sorts, QPQ or nitriding is a chemical change and not a coating.

Stainless without any treatment is the softest, and likely most precise, but shortest barrel life.

QPQ or other salt bath nitriding treatment is performed on the steel after rifling and keeps the dimensions and edges of the rifling better than chrome lining. The main benefit is that it’s a chemical process and not a coating. So the rifling will remain precise. It is hard enough to greatly extend barrel life for most shooters. Unless you’re heating up your gun with machine gun fire, nitriding will hold up nearly as long as chrome. Nitriding in various forms will be good enough hardening for 99% of non-military shooters who don’t need the extreme precision of non-treated stainless.

Chrome lining has come a long way and can be very precise for combat guns if done right. However, it still won’t be as precise as nitrided or stainless barrels. And it won’t last much longer than a nitrided barrel, except in machine guns. Chrome is resistant to the high heat, whereas nitrided barrels are more susceptible to wear during sustained high rates of fire.

 

[PappyM3]

Stainless is going to be more accurate. The best advice I can give you is if you only want to go out the 300 yards use a 16 inch barrel. I started my 6.5 bolt gun with a 22 inch barrel and later bought a 16 inch Proof Research carbon barrel. You lose some ballistic performance with the lower velocity but no accuracy at 300 yards. It’s so much more maneuverable with a 16 inch barrel.

Agreed. 16” is fine for 6.5 CM if you’re not looking for long range performance. And it’s especially fine if you’re at 300 and in.

 

[teamRR]

Agreed. 16” is fine for 6.5 CM if you’re not looking for long range performance. And it’s especially fine if you’re at 300 and in.

Like I mentioned though, I would like it to be capable of such. Where I shoot today I am limited but eventually I'd like to increase that.

Added: actually worth mentioning is where I shoot today, long range days occur mainly in bad weather due to crowd control, so its almost always windy. Seems odd but a cold, windy, or even drizzling day I tend to capitalize on by being able to shoot alone - at least by the charts I think even at 300 yards 6.5 creed is significantly less impacted when it comes to wind.

Plus once I go putting a scope on an AR10 they are about impossible to shoot well shouldered, never mind a bipod - so at that point I call it a bench rifle and I could care less about the weight or how it handles.

 

[PappyM3]

Like I mentioned though, I would like it to be capable of such. Where I shoot today I am limited but eventually I'd like to increase that.

Added: actually worth mentioning is where I shoot today, long range days occur mainly in bad weather due to crowd control, so its almost always windy. Seems odd but a cold, windy, or even drizzling day I tend to capitalize on by being able to shoot alone - at least by the charts I think even at 300 yards 6.5 creed is significantly less impacted when it comes to wind.

Plus once I go putting a scope on an AR10 they are about impossible to shoot well shouldered, never mind a bipod - so at that point I call it a bench rifle and I could care less about the weight or how it handles.

What are you considering long range?

Also, note that a 16” 6.5CM still has better wind bucking than a 20-22” .308, depending on bullet selection. And with a 140-143gr bullet, you won’t be transonic until past 1k yards. 16” 6.5CM will get your past mid-range(600 yards) and into long range. The long 6.5CM barrels will just make things a bit easier out at the long ranges. Make no mistake, a 16” 6.5CM can still do long range work when needed. You need to weigh how often you’ll be shooting at that distance vs handling it closer in. But if you still want to stick with a 20+” barrel, enjoy. If it’s mostly a bench gun regardless of the distance, than barrel length doesn’t matter too much. Just providing some info to chew on.

 

[teamRR]

What are you considering long range?

Also, note that a 16” 6.5CM still has better wind bucking than a 20-22” .308, depending on bullet selection. And with a 140-143gr bullet, you won’t be transonic until past 1k yards. 16” 6.5CM will get your past mid-range(600 yards) and into long range. The long 6.5CM barrels will just make things a bit easier out at the long ranges. Make no mistake, a 16” 6.5CM can still do long range work when needed. You need to weigh how often you’ll be shooting at that distance vs handling it closer in. But if you still want to stick with a 20+” barrel, enjoy. If it’s mostly a bench gun regardless of the distance, than barrel length doesn’t matter too much. Just providing some info to chew on.

I definitely get what you are saying and am usually the person pointing out that there isn't much of a compelling reason to go > 16 inches in an AR15/10 - it generally just makes them unwieldy and adds such a small velocity there is no benefit.

But this is only a bench gun. The scope will be heavy, the bipod will be loctited on there - arguably +6 inches in barrel won't help but then if it's never going to be fired off my shoulder anyway it doesn't hurt either.

Now if I get all into the caliber maybe there is another "light" upper in my future that handles well in the 16 inch range, but then I would probably opt for a lighter optic too, will not permanently attach a bipod, etc.

 

[teamRR]

Well this just threw me for a loop.

I just realized the equivalent 22 inch QPQ criterion barrel I was looking at is also 416 stainless. I ASSumed it was chrome-moly.. Sooo basically this route I could have stainless or coated stainless..

Seems like coated stainless might be the best of both worlds.. what do you guys think?

 

[PappyM3]

Well this just threw me for a loop.

I just realized the equivalent 22 inch QPQ criterion barrel I was looking at is also 416 stainless. I ASSumed it was chrome-moly.. Sooo basically this route I could have stainless or coated stainless..

Seems like coated stainless might be the best of both worlds.. what do you guys think?

I laid out the differences earlier with a fairly detailed post. But QPQ is not a coating. It is a chemical process to change the properties of the steel surface. Well, that’s nitriding in general. QPQ adds a mechanical polishing midway through.

Chrome lining is a coating and a separate thing.

But yes, most people will benefit with nitriding/QPQ over untreated stainless or chrome lining.

Match/competition gun trying to eek out the most precision? Untreated stainless

Machine gun or lots of binary trigger time? Chrome lined

Everybody else? Nitriding/QPQ

 

[teamRR]

I laid out the differences earlier with a fairly detailed post. But QPQ is not a coating. It is a chemical process to change the properties of the steel surface. Well, that’s nitriding in general. QPQ adds a mechanical polishing midway through.

Chrome lining is a coating and a separate thing.

But yes, most people will benefit with nitriding/QPQ over untreated stainless or chrome lining.

Match/competition gun trying to eek out the most precision? Untreated stainless

Machine gun or lots of binary trigger time? Chrome lined

Everybody else? Nitriding/QPQ
Chrome lining is a coating and a separate thing.

Thanks for that, when I originally saw it I thought it was confusion over my poor title choice. Whenever I saw QPQ I always thought chrome-moly and stainless I assumed was just uncoated.. you understood it I just didn't realize the options in front of me.

I think for longer life (longer consistency another way to put it) the extra $40 for treatment makes sense. Thanks again!