New Ruger SR-556c...

[Boge Quinn]

http://www.gunblast.com/NewRugers.htm

 

[deadduck357]

Mo money to be spent

http://ruger.com/products/sr556/specSheets/5905.html

 

[deadduck357]

http://ruger.com/news/2010-05-13c.html

 

[SIGWatchman]

I certainly wished they had fluted the original SR556.

I don't mind the longer barrel I have but I must say they made a nice choice for the integral flash suppressor. The mini 14 suppressor was the first thing I changed on mine.

Offer a 1:7 twist version of the SR556C and I'd have a hard time denying my desires. :lol:

 

[Boge Quinn]

I certainly wished they had fluted the original SR556.

I don't mind the longer barrel I have but I must say they made a nice choice for the integral flash suppressor. The mini 14 suppressor was the first thing I changed on mine.

Offer a 1:7 twist version of the SR556C and I'd have a hard time denying my desires. :lol:

The 556c fully stabilizes the Sierra 77 grain bullet.

Jeff Quinn

 

[wixedmords]

A .357 LCR BQ.

Very nice.

 

[SIGWatchman]

I certainly wished they had fluted the original SR556.

I don't mind the longer barrel I have but I must say they made a nice choice for the integral flash suppressor. The mini 14 suppressor was the first thing I changed on mine.

Offer a 1:7 twist version of the SR556C and I'd have a hard time denying my desires. :lol:

The 556c fully stabilizes the Sierra 77 grain bullet.

Jeff Quinn

I'm looking forward to your review. Thanks for the input, my wallet just winced a little. :wink:

 

[boaman88]

Would have been more beneficial to make SR556 without all the overpriced Troy trimmings. I could care less about railed handguards. The added weight and cost is keeping me from considering the SR556.

 

[CATTLEDAWG]

I can certainly understand wanting a version without all of the Troy stuff...after all, one of the biggest reasons for the popularity of the AR platform is that you can dress 'em how how YOU want one and truely personalize 'em...that being said, I am a big fan of the products from Troy and if one was available in a naked version, I'd just gear mine up with Troy products anyways...and the added weight from the hand guard is a plus for me...my purpose for my AR is for personal defense...and for me, rapid follow up shots sure do benefit from that extra weight...on another note...I love my LCR (38+P), but I think the new 357 version was kinda like "so what"...I really wish they would produce one in 9mm...unconventioal, yes...but they could do it...and what an awesome personal defense piece that would be for the wife...

 

[JeepVideo]

An SR-556C!?! Wow, I've been eyeing up the SR-556 since I first heard about it (can't afford it unfortunately) and now this little gem.

Can't wait to start reading some reviews so I can torture myself some more over which one I'd want to own when the lottery comes in in my favor

 

[dacaur]

So, basically, they just chopped the length of the flash hider off the barrel, and made it (the flash hider) a permanent part of the barrel to keep it 16"? and other than the fluting on the barrel, is there anything else? seems like kind of a downgrade to me.... And calling it a "carbine length model of the sr-556 rifle".... Umm, I'm pretty sure the sr-556 is already carbine length.... :roll:

I agree with above, I would like to see a cheaper stripped down version too....

 

[BearHawk 357]

I certainly wished they had fluted the original SR556.

I like the heavy barrel of the first SR-556. There are TONS of lightweight M4's (and now the SR-556c) out there, these days, if you want to go light. The SR-556 feels barrel heavy when you first pick one up but most guys end up really liking the extra mass while actually shooting one. It's kind of a "trade-off" thing. Do you want it to feel light on your shoulder or do you want your follow-up shots to be quicker? Some folks even say that transitions from target-to-target seem more stable with a slightly heavier barrel profile (among many other trade-offs). YMMV.

Umm, I'm pretty sure the sr-556 is already carbine length....

In the AR world, carbines have 16" (total length) barrels and they usually have the standard 7" long handguards. The first SR-556 is not a carbine. It is considered a mid-length rifle. Mid-length AR's have barrels that are right around 18" in total length and the gas block is further away from the upper, on a mid-length, as compared to that of a carbine rifle.

An exception to all of this would be the hybrids, like the bushmaster dissipators for example, which have the carbine length barrel combined a longer gas block positioning and longer handguard length. So, in this configuration you get a short barrel but with a long sight radius due to the front sight post being "stretched way out" towards the end of the barrel. Some say, "the best of both worlds."

I know it may sound like splitting hairs, sub-dividing these rifles into tiny sub-categories like this, but most things in the gun world just happen to be this way, similarly. I hope that this info has cleared up some of the confusion.

 

[deadduck357]

'C' may signify Compact ?

 

[SIGWatchman]

A few things to consider with the SR556 and the new SR556C.

The rail is part of the system, the upper channel of the rail holds the op-rod in place. A "stripped down" version would require a redesign. If Ruger was shortsighted at all here, they should have gone monolithic like LMT.

SR556 has a 16.25" barrel, with the factory suppressor the overall length is over 18". I don't know exactly because I changed mine for a Phantom.

From my guess, the SR556C barrel looks to be about 14-14.5" with a suppressor milled out of the barrel steel making overall barrel length 16". There are *many* AR carbines out there with this similar barrel setup. I doubt there is much difference in loudness and flash with two inches, we're not talking about an SBR here. The idea is to meet minimum required length as mandated by big brother and no more. The only thing unique to the SR556C in this case is Ruger milled the suppressor right out of the barrel stock. This is a great feature of the SR556C, in my opinion.

Lets face it, the SR556 is front heavy. And in my opinion does not balance well. A slightly shorter barrel and some fluting may just tip that balance back enough to make it not so obvious.

One thing to consider about the fluting, heavy barrels do not run cooler. They retain heat better and stay hot longer. Fluting, from its origins, was a means to create more surface area on the barrel profile to aid in heat dissipation.

I think the SR556C is a positive step in the right direction. Even with these changes, it will not be a light weight carbine, not by any direct impingement standards at least.

Now if Ruger would only address that silly out of date un-shrouded bolt carrier issue... :lol:

 

[Boge Quinn]

The shorter, lighter barrel makes a significant difference in balance. The SR556c is, to me, much quicker to handle.

 

[BearHawk 357]

One thing to consider about the fluting, heavy barrels do not run cooler. They retain heat better and stay hot longer. Fluting, from its origins, was a means to create more surface area on the barrel profile to aid in heat dissipation.

I often wonder if a barrel that is quickly heated up, by bullet friction, and then rapidly cooled by "heat-sinks", fins, dimples, flutes etc. could actually be worst then a thicker "plain" barrel that cools down at a slower (and more uniform) pace, as it pertains to barrel life and long-term accuracy retention.

I am reminded of a time, as a kid, when I broke my fish tank while cleaning it. I had quickly switched from hot to cold water when the tank shattered. Now, I know that gun barrels are not made of glass. However, a similar law of physics may apply here.

I'm not trashing fluted barrels (or the new 556c). I have just often thought about the true-life benefits of barrel fluting vs. the marketing aspect of them. One thing is for certain about them....they are much lighter in weight as compared to heavy profile barrels. I'm glad Ruger came out with this lighter rifle. It at least gives the consumer a choice (which we all knew would show up sooner or later). Sorry about the mild hijack. Back on topic.

 

[dacaur]

I often wonder if a barrel that is quickly heated up, by bullet friction, and then rapidly cooled by "heat-sinks", fins, dimples, flutes etc. could actually be worst then a thicker "plain" barrel that cools down at a slower (and more uniform) pace, as it pertains to barrel life and long-term accuracy retention.

Definitely not something worth worrying about.... The amount of heat you can generate with a semi auto rifle will never be enough to permanently warp a steel barrel. The heating a cooling cycles will never be a problem, as steel has an infinite fatigue life.

 

[SIGWatchman]

I guess I am wrong on how fluting affects cooling.

http://www.snipercountry.com/articles/r ... luting.asp

 

[dacaur]

I guess I am wrong on how fluting affects cooling.

http://www.snipercountry.com/articles/r ... luting.asp

No you are correct, it is due to increased surface area... You cant look at one blog and throw out everything you have ever learned... whoever the author is he has some convincing sounding arguments, and while the part about the flutes not adding rigidity is true, his explanation of the heat factor is full of technical errors and pure BS. Basically, he is putting forth his own personal theories, which are wrong. Here is a snippet from your link

Here is an excellent analogy. We love to barbecue in the summer. Place an aluminum foil on the grill to cook you burgers. After you burgers are cooked, remove the aluminum foil and notice that it cools off almost immediately. Now fold the aluminum foil to make it thicker and put it back on the grill. Remove it afterwards and you will notice that it does not cool off as fast. It is the same analogy with barrels. In short, hunting rifles dissipate heat quicker than varminters do.

He is claiming here that the aluminum foil cools off faster when its open than when its folded because it's thinner, but missing the obvious observation that an open sheet of aluminum foil has much more surface area than a folded sheet. More surface area = quicker cool down. Of course if you take several folded sheets and press them together to form a single, thicker sheet, then put them in the fire, the single thinner sheet will still cool off faster, Not for the simple fact that its "thinner" as he is implying, but simply because the thicker sheet has more material so is able to absorb more heat from the fire. In a controlled environment if you were able to put the exact same amount of heat into both the thick and thin sheet of foil, assuming they have the same surface area, the thinner sheet will get hotter, but both will cool at about the same time.

Let us say you fire 10 rounds in 10 seconds in a hunting rifle. And at the same time your friend also fires 10 rounds in 10 seconds in a bull barreled varmint rifle. We all know that heat is generated as a result of the bullet going through the bore at a high rate of speed, causing friction and releasing energy. Now, the temperature inside both barrels should theoretically be equal, but the temperature on the surface of the hunting rifle will be a lot hotter than the temperature on the surface of the varminter.

If the part in bold were true, then he would be correct with his observations, but that would be ignoring the laws of physics, its just not true. In reality, no part of the thicker barrel will be as hot as the thinner barrel. The thicker barrel has more material available to disperse the heat. The same amount of heat was generated in both barrels, but that heat is distributed throughout the material in both barrels, which means the thicker barrel will be cooler, inside and out.

Take two buckets of water. fill one 1/4 full, and the other 1/2 full of cool water, these will be our thin and thick barrels, respectively. Now dump exactly 1/4 bucket of boiling water into each bucket, which one do you think will end up hotter? Obviously the 1/4 full one, because there is less cool water to absorb the heat from the boiling water. in essence, he is starting off by saying that both buckets will be the same temperature.

Basically, he is basically starting his theory with a huge flaw from the get-go. He is right in saying that a thinner barrel will cool faster if they are heated to the same temperature, but he is dead wrong in his observations because in order to get both barrels to the same temperature, you would have to apply a lot more heat to the thicker barrel. When you shoot 10 identical bullets from two barrels, one thick and one thin, they will NOT be the same temperature. The thinner barrel will be hotter. They both contain the same amount of heat, but its more spread out in the thicker barrel, so that one is cooler.

Here is a simple experiment. Take a big thick piece of metal, like maybe a 3/4" thick bolt, and hold a lighter under it for 5 seconds, wait a few seconds and touch it on both sides, the side away from the heat will be cool, but the side you just heated will not burn you either, because the heat from the lighter was distributed through the large amount of metal very quickly. Now take a thin piece of metal, such as a wood screw or nail and do the same thing. The screw/nail will be MUCH hotter when you touch it because it has less material to spread the heat out in.

Basically, if you apply the same amount of heat to a thin barrel and a thick barrel, the thick barrel will ALWAYS be cooler, and the barrel with the most surface area will ALWAYS cool faster. Those are the laws of physics.

What he is doing is trying to get you to believe that when you shoot both barrels, the internal temperature will be the same, as if the heat waited right there in the center of the barrel building up until you finished shooting, then started slowly moving outward towards the outside of the barrel at a slow and steady pace then started dissipating into the air at the same rate from both barrels regardless of surface area...... That's just not the case. In reality of course the heat starts moving outward as soon as you start shooting. The thinner barrel will start to feel hot faster because there is less material for the heat to spread out into, not because the outside of the barrel is closer to the heat source.

In short, the thinner the wall, the faster the heat reaches the surface and the faster the heat will be dissipated into and equalized within the ambient (outside) temperature.

Again, this "sounds" reasonable, but is simply not true. If you take two barrels, one thick, one thin, made of the same metal, and apply the same amount of heat to both of them. the barrel with more surface area will cool down faster every time. anything else goes against the laws of physics.
His biggest problem here is assuming that because the outside of one barrel gets hot faster, it will bleed off that heat into the air faster. Obviously thats not true. Air will only conduct heat so fast. the more air you can get into contact with the metal, the more heat the air can take away, the only way to get more air in contact with the barrel is to increase its surface area, hence, fluting.

 

[deadduck357]

SR-556c Gunblast review http://gunblast.com/Ruger-SR556c.htm