I have always used a false bottom in my 10G cylindrical tun but have been advised by a friend that he substituted SS mesh tube with significant improvement…any experiences?
I’ve tried false bottoms, manifolds, and the SS screen mesh. My experience is that the mesh is less prone to stuck or slow runoffs than the other 2 and the wort clears much more quickly during vorlauf.
The downside to SS mesh tubes is that the HBS makes a lot of money selling those expensive false bottoms. 
But the OP has already purchased one, so go for the ss mesh tube 
BTW, I can’t speak of the others, but I have only ever used a SS mesh tube and love it.
You can brew great beer with any of those devises. But a false bottom is the best choice for full efficiency of your grains. The mesh tube sitting down the middle of your tun will have a hard time sparging the grains to the side of it way at the bottom. Look to Plamer’s “How to brew” for some flow diagrams. I use a foldable false bottom in a 1/2 gallon keg, with the outlest at the very bottom. I control mash temp through a RIMS systems. Never once had a stuck sparge. Even with an Amber I brew with lots of 6-row.
But, like I said. You can make great beers with any of the systems.
mic, that’s true if you’re fly sparging, but it doesn’t apply to batch sparging.
I do fly sparge. I can “see” what you’re saying. Good clarification.
Why would you say “Even with an Amber I brew with lots of 6-row.” Is 6-row more likely to casue a stuck sparge?
Pepe
I’d think it would be the other way around…I may be mistaken, but I thought 6 row had more husk material, which would help prevent a stuck runoff.
LHBS suggested using rice hulls with 1/2 of grist being 6-row. I chose not too.
I don’t understand that. AFAIK, 6 row has more husk material is less prone to sticking than 2 row. Maybe I’m wrong…
Here is one source about husk content:
http://www.brewingwithbriess.com/Malting101/The_Row_Less_Traveled.htm
“Some of the additional protein comes from the higher husk content of 6-Row malting barley. Because it’s more plump, 2-Row malt has less husk in relation to its size than 6-Row malt.”
I use a false bottom stuck with a stainless screen over it just for added benefit.
To clarify,I batch sparge
Agreed, I did some research last night, and just as others have already said, 6-row does have more husk material.
But, I would still recommend to one and all to use a false bottom, regardless of sparging method.
What advantages do you think a false bottom has?
I re-read Palmer’s book and I believe him. Even if batch sparging, the liquid will not flow through the corners of your mash tun with a bazooka screen. It’s plain physics. He explains much better than I. Whereas a false bottom drains the entire mast bed equally.
But, that’s not to say you can’t make good beer unless you have a false bottom. That would be crazy talk. But I do beleive it’s the best option.
I think you’re confusing the physics behind fly sparging and batch sparging. In fly sparging, it is important to get the sparge water evenly distributed over the grain, since you’re rinsing the sugars out. In batch sparging, though, the stirring dissolves the sugars into the sparge water so it’s a draining process and even distribution makes no difference. That’s borne out by the fact that I and most other batch spargers get efficiency at least as good as fly spargers. Both methods of sparging work fine, but in batch sparging you’re not dependent on your lauter design to get good efficiency.
But shouldn’t you compare batch sparging with a bazooka vs batch sparging with a false bottom? I fully agree you can get great efficiency with a bazooka screen and batch sparging. And I have no doubt depending on other factors, even better than a fly sparger. But my guess is that even a batch sparger, would get increased effiency by using a false bottom. Because either way, gravity will pull the wort to the opening. With a false bottom, the whole bottom of the tun is that opening, and liquid on the top and edge of the grain bed will go straight down. With a bazooka, it will creep towards the center as it falls. With the less liquid going through the grain at the far edge at the bottom of the tun.
You’re still missing the fact that that doesn’t matter with batch sparging. With fly, the only way you rinse all your grain is to have the water pass through all the grain, hence the need for the false bottom (or manifold or whatever). With batch, you add all your water at once and then completely stir the mash. This stirring causes all the grain to get rinsed (even the little bits way down in the corners that fly can’t get to). Now that every bit of grain has been rinsed, all the sugars are in solution and you simply drain off that sugar containing liquid (wort). At that point it doesn’t matter whether/which grain is passes through.