Re: You Gotta See This
I missed their attempt or demonstration of "tuning" via position with it. I stand corrected if thats their claim. I realise that anything touching a gun will effect it, and where it touches will seem better or worse. But for this device, if it works, and wherever it is finally placed, the "tune" is still going to vary with timing changes in load. IAW you will always be able to go in and out of tune, regardless of where the device is positioned. I wouldn't think you would reposition the device like a true tuner, specifically to compensate for timing issues/load variations. Again, just trying to express another perspective. I see it mor as a damper than tuner.
I agree with you 100%. And I hope Bill is right. But if he is, I hope most that he is convincing enough to sway the masses. Within the past 7yrs I have tried to persuade every big barrelmaker on the planet to make me a few taper bored barrels. Not one could or would. Most big barrelmakers claim exact(.00001)consistancy from end to end, and yet they mark muzzle end as if "tightest". Pure BS.
When challenged, I found that most had no means of measuring internal dimensions of a rifled, lapped, and contoured bore. And most did not account for or even acknowledge bore growth in contouring.
It's no wonder barrel performance is abstract. Their manufacturing and machining is left to the abstract.
In my view a better barrel could be made and known to be better without shooting it, than todays barrels. It should be UNDER bored and rifled AFTER contouring, then extrude honed with the barrel -at operating temperature, hottest at the breech, coolest at the muzzle, until dimensions are perfect. Thats right -perfect.