I have been told that the cryo freezing the barrel helps the barrel but before I sink another 100 dollars into it I would like to here the good and bad of it
Thanks Ted

Cryo treating a barrel can increase it's wear resistance by precipitating carbides to the surface and further reducing the amount of austenite and increasing the amount of martensite in the steel. That much is proven.
What is unproven is it's value in a barrel and the cost to have it done. I understand the process, I know it works. I just don't believe it contributes enough to make a difference.

I think that went out with moly bullets

If you're gonna sink more $s into the rifle, sink them somewhere else.

Some of us smart ones still value what moly has to offer....

And Kreiger still cryos their barrels.

Way back when, I cryo'd 3 barrels. One was eating scopes that both Burris and Leupold attributed to a harmonics issue. I saw no difference in anything in two of the barrels though they 'seemed' a bit easier to clean. On the harmonics problem barrel, it quit eating scopes. I saw one barrel that belonged to a friend, go from being a tack driver to being a great shotgun. At this stage I wouldn't waste my money.

I had a barrel maker from Oregon chamber up a varmint tapper 22-284 Winchester barrel in stainless. I shipped it off to 300 below as soon as I finish lapping it with JB bore paste. This was a new barrel so I can't say what improvements I noticed over a nonfrozen barrel however when load developing the load batch that ripped a ragged hole at 50yards did the same thing at 100yards. I finished looking for a load with only 16 rounds fired, my worst group measured 3/4" @ 100 and the pet load measured in the .2'S

I froze the barrel to slow throat erosion and ease cleaning, I'll say cleaning is quicker with this overbore 22 and I'd freeze another barrel without a doubt!

Just my experience with cryo treatments.

You think that easy of cleaning might be attributed to lapping with JB bore paste??

I had a 220 swift custom barrel frozen a few years ago. It has been shot quite a bit since. Hard to say whether it did anything, but my bias is that it's a waste of money.

I have had many barrels cryo'ed. I can tell that they machine better, but I don't think it does anything else. Now some do not understand true cryo. 300 degrees won't get it. You need to really research this subject before you spend your money. I've tried something different on some barrels and they really shot great. Wow, well the next time the next barrel didn't. The only thing that has worked for me is Melonite. It does not make a barrel shoot any different, it just makes them last longer.

I've had a few barrels cryo'd in the past and never used JB paste and they cleaned easier than before they were cryo'd.
This was on factory barrels, I haven't done it to a custom barrel.

I agree with Butch in that the barrels that I have worked on machine better. I have used a couple of them on P-dog rifles and IMO they don't last any longer than a non-cryo'd barrel. Me thinks it's a waste of $.

When I made knives, I had them cyro treated. I had all of them with this particular steel cyro treated, so I never tested or used one that was not cyro treated. These blades were heat treated by a person who is considered the best in this line of work, and I trust what he has to say about how it should be done.

Supposedly, with 154 CM, cyro will add 1 or 2 Rc points, and will also make the steel tougher--more resistant to breakage. Some race drivers have the gears and axels in race cars cyro treated. It is supposed to make them stronger.

I have researched cyro treating quite a bit, and have also talked to professional heat treaters, and as best as I can figure out, the method cyro treaters use to treat barrels is not the correct way.

If cyro would cause the bore to be 1 or 2 points Rc higher, I can only see this as a plus. A bore, just a little bit harder might give better barrel life.

I can also understand how transforming to austinite to marstinate would make the bore easier to clean. Actually, not really easier to clean, but not get as dirty to begin with.

And, as martinsite is harder than austinite, I can understand how cyro treating would extend barrel life, especially in the throat area.

I would pay extra to have a stainless knife blade cyro treated, as a part of the heat treating sequence, but I don't think I would pay to have a rifle barrel cyro treated. At least not the way people in the business do it.

I would like to see a comparison made between a barrel that has been correctly cyro treated and compare it to an identical barrel that has never been cyro treated, even to the extent of Rockwell testing each barrel after they were completed.

Even if cyro treating made a barrel better, whatever better is, it would not make a rifle that shoots a constant 3 MOA group into a .5 MOA shooter.

Also, cyro treating has no effect on certain types of steel, whether knife blades or gun barrels.

I think it depends on the particular barrel. I've only done one (a 6mm Win. Model 70 Ftwt.) and it went from 1.5" at 100 yds. to 3/8" with the same factory load. Then Rem. quit making that load. Then I started handloading. Barnes 90g XFB into 3/8" at 3300+fps. My daughter whacks deer with it every year.

Cryo is not a substitute for a properly built, and installed, barrel.

Do benchrest or olympic target shooters cryo their barrels?

A few comments:

Yes, Krieger cryos their barrels--but they do it BEFORE the barrel is completed, to help machining.

If you want cleaning ease, a $45 kit of Dyna Bore-Coat will do 6-12 barrels and make cleaning a LOT easier.

As far as I know, nobody has ever taken 20 barrels from the same manufacturer, of the same chambering and contour, then had 10 cryoed and 10 not, then shot them all to see what the difference was in accuracy, cleaning, bore-life, etc. That would seem to be the only way to START to come up with some sort of answer.

Instead the "tests" I've seen published in various places have been of 1-3 finished barrels shot before and after
cryo treatment. The difference in accuracvy was always so minimal it was far from statistically valid--and who knows how good the shooter was? I can't even recall any of the testers using wind flags, which would seem to be a prerequisite to a valid test.

Yep.....but then Krieger used to double cryo their barrels, once before, and again after, till they got taken to court and the 2nd was deemed a patent infringement.

I'm not sure they cryo any more.

Several post above indicate a proper way to cryo and the way it's usually done. Can someone explain to me the difference?

What's old is new again...
http://24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/6376091/2

I'd look for Kevin Thomas' article in the Sept 1998 issue of Precision Shooting.

Here's Kevin describing his work on another forum;
http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f17/300-below-cryo-process-my-338-lapua-83035/index2.html

Go to this website and they have good info for you.

http://metal-wear.com/index.html

I do know of a barrel maker that sent 25 blanks to a real Cryo place. They were handled different ways when they came back. They were 30 cal barrels. They were 12 twist. Some were chambered and shot and some were chambered and recryo'd. The shooters that shot them were unaware of the cryo. They neither shot or cleaned better. They do seem to machine easier.

I got this information from a professional heat treater, whom people who have had their knife blades heat treated, and cyroed, by him hold him in very high regard.

People trained in metalology would have a better understanding of this than I have, but when steel is hardened, it is said it goes to a austinizing temperature. Then, it is quenched in water, brine, air or oil, depending on the type of steel and it's alloying content.

This rapid cooling transforms the austinite to martinsite. I don't know what this is, but I understand that martinsite is good and austinite is bad.

When the steel is quenched, not all of the austinite is transformed into martinsite.

Now, here is the difference. As I understand it, when it is cooled, from the heat treating temperature to room temperature, it needs to continue the cooling cycle down to approximately -320 F without interrupting, for the austinite to martinsite transformation to be complete, and for as much as the austinite to transform as possible.

If this cooling is interrupted, as in quenched to room temperature, then tempered, there is still a lot of austinite left in the steel, and further cooling it does not transform any more austinite.

If cyro quenched at a later date, say next week or next year, and after the steel is tempered, the austinite to martinsite transformation does not start over from room temperature to -320 F.

A far as I know, when the cooling cycle is interrupted, and the steel is tempered, then cyroed, there is no change. What ever austinite was in the steel at room temperture is still present.

So, if a barrel is cyroed a year after it is heat treated I don't think there would be any change. I have seen advertisements offering cyro treating on rifle and shotgun barrels after they have been in service for years.

I would not pay the expense to cyro treat a barrel, or a knife blade, if the cycle has been interruped for any length of time. And by this, I mean, after it is cool enough to handle with your bare hands, it goes right into the liquid nitrogen.

Some people claim cyro treating will stress relieve the steel. It doesn't. When the steel is placed into the heat treat furnace, it is brought up to about 1000 to 1200 F, depending on the steel and it's alloy content, where it soaks at this temperature, before being brought up to the austinizing temperature. This is stress relieving. Freezing it is not stress relieving.

In short, the steel has to be taken down from the austinizing temperature to -320F in one complete cooling cycle for cyro treating to have any effect.