Originally Posted by Trickymissfit
engineering wise the barrel nut is the only way to go! Here's why: when you seat the barrel on the shoulder the barrel threads are actually in suspension with about 25% thread contact at best (if you can screw the barrel into the reciever you have clearence). Nobody grinds the threads, and even fewer would even know how to grind an internal thread for a near perfect fit. But with the nut you actually stretch the barrel thread and thus greatly increase the thread form contact area. What this does is that it makes the threaded portion of the barrel stay strait instead of whipping when the four vectors of force hit the threaded area of the barrel during ignition (there's actually six when you add the bolt face into the equation). There's another way to avoid this, but I won't go there as it can send you to the hospital real fast if done even slightly wrong on a big bore gun.
I will have to contradict the 25% thread contact because If a smith does his job right the
thread contact is almost 100% .
I have cut threads that could not be made up by hand and then simply chased the threads
without changing the compound settings and it would make up although tight and with no
slack or movement.
If the tool has the proper angle and pitch it can be fitted to any reciever nearly perfect.
The reason you stated , is the very reason dont like the barrel nut system. It is a cost
saving method and to assemble a rifle with this system all you need is an trained operator/assembler and not a gun smith.
A rifle that has a shouldered barrel has to be set up by a smith and head spaced before
There is nothing realy wrong with the system its is just not precise enough to suit me
and I'm sure others.
So no mater what system is used 25% thread engagement is not enough.
If I do a savage with the nut I will always get 95%+ thread fit between the barrel and
the receiver before the nut is installed I will redo it.
This is not an attack just my opinion.
J E CUSTOM