Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Gunsmithing
Why is there no coatings used in rifle throats to slow erosion?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="theflyonthewall" data-source="post: 584790" data-attributes="member: 35305"><p>No shortgrass, I was "after" a creative discussion with people throwing out ideas in the hope that we might just learn something. If somewhere along the line we're fortunate enough to actually come across something that has merit and could be pursued, then great! But if not, we can all still learn from each other. </p><p></p><p>On the specific "replaceable throat" concept, I was HOPING that someone with real gunsmith experience could say....."might be cost prohibitive, but could work".....or..."it's not going to have the outcome that your looking for BECAUSE........" So if you have a real-world perspective on what's wrong with it, please chime in. But just saying "Are you after Minute of broad side of the barn...." doesn't allow us to learn much. </p><p></p><p>You may be so much more intelligent than me, that this idea seems like some sort of cartoon to you, but I'm actually serious about learning something that I've never known much about. So please feel free to contribute or not contribute. But can we do it without sarcasm?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>J E........thank you for giving us your thoughts! I for one definitely appreciate you taking the time.</p><p></p><p>I agree that our human need to "push things" (oftentimes past the practical limits) is what has led us to where we are. Good point.</p><p></p><p>It seems as though the military has actually spent a great deal of time and money on this very concept. Do you feel that their needs and our needs are different enough that some of the coatings that they've found less than suitable might actually be beneficial to us?</p><p></p><p>What I mean by that is----they're going to need coatings that can stand up to rapid-fire/sustained fire scenarios where they'll be generating a case for much quicker erosion. Has the TYPE of firing had any bearing on their experiments? I don't know. Do you?<---that's NOT said in sarcasm...lol.</p><p></p><p>If not......maybe that's something that I should research more?</p><p></p><p>Again, thank you for taking time out of your day to lends us your perspective. It's really appreciated.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="theflyonthewall, post: 584790, member: 35305"] No shortgrass, I was "after" a creative discussion with people throwing out ideas in the hope that we might just learn something. If somewhere along the line we're fortunate enough to actually come across something that has merit and could be pursued, then great! But if not, we can all still learn from each other. On the specific "replaceable throat" concept, I was HOPING that someone with real gunsmith experience could say....."might be cost prohibitive, but could work".....or..."it's not going to have the outcome that your looking for BECAUSE........" So if you have a real-world perspective on what's wrong with it, please chime in. But just saying "Are you after Minute of broad side of the barn...." doesn't allow us to learn much. You may be so much more intelligent than me, that this idea seems like some sort of cartoon to you, but I'm actually serious about learning something that I've never known much about. So please feel free to contribute or not contribute. But can we do it without sarcasm? J E........thank you for giving us your thoughts! I for one definitely appreciate you taking the time. I agree that our human need to "push things" (oftentimes past the practical limits) is what has led us to where we are. Good point. It seems as though the military has actually spent a great deal of time and money on this very concept. Do you feel that their needs and our needs are different enough that some of the coatings that they've found less than suitable might actually be beneficial to us? What I mean by that is----they're going to need coatings that can stand up to rapid-fire/sustained fire scenarios where they'll be generating a case for much quicker erosion. Has the TYPE of firing had any bearing on their experiments? I don't know. Do you?<---that's NOT said in sarcasm...lol. If not......maybe that's something that I should research more? Again, thank you for taking time out of your day to lends us your perspective. It's really appreciated. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Gunsmithing
Why is there no coatings used in rifle throats to slow erosion?
Top