I've been going back through a lot of punkworks' stuff on barrels with a focus on standard deviation. I think we can agree that accuracy comes down to a low standard deviation on things like fps, spin, etc. with all else being common. And efficiency comes down to low standard deviation at higher fps produced with all else being common.

First off, it's amazing how well the 14" CP .685 1-piece barrel does as a control in all of these tests. This is across different paint types and different weather conditions. It seems you could go so far as to say, if you can only own one barrel, get the 14" CP .685 1-piece.

But it is possible to do a little better.
When looking at spin induced by the barrel, their tests showed no noticeable difference made by rifled barrels, but the lowest standard deviation of spin was produced by unrifled barrels underbored by .003 or bore matched.

At various times and with different paint, they have done efficiency testing and the .682-.685's tend to come out the best (again, looking at higher fps with low standard deviation) with overall barrel lengths between 10-14".

In their control bore study, the 9" control bore seems to be the clear winner in terms of low deviation.

And in their underbore study, they found a .003-.005 underbore to be best.


So, It seems you want a 10-14" barrel with a 9" control bore with enough backs to keep you underbored around .003 for the best accuracy and efficiency.

I remember that they said the Lurker and FLASC kits came closest to the ideal barrel for them.


This is probably old news to most of you since most of this testing was done years ago, but every once in a while I get the urge to buy a new barrel and have to remind myself that what I have is more than sufficient. So maybe next time I won't have to do all that forum-scouring all over again.