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
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Shocked at how much throat 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="Steve Shelp" data-source="post: 184729" data-attributes="member: 22"><p>Eddie,</p><p> Not sure what to say. I don't doubt your data. The data I base my opinion on is several barrel makers over several years in keeping stats for 600 and 1000yd competition. If there was an issue with double base powders being harder on barrels it would show up real quick. But we haven't seen this. I'm talking about keeping track of match stats across many states, all barrel makers, over an 11 year time period and nobody can conclusively say that double base powders are harder on a barrel during this time. This is one big advantage of competition shooting. You get large amounts of data in a shorter period of time for things like this.</p><p> Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying your data is false or incorrect. But it does contradict the results of a much larger sampling size over a much larger period of time. Obviosuly something doesn't add up here. What cleaning solvents were used, rate of fire, etc etc?? We don't know.</p><p> Excessive erosion in 450rds would have competition shooters in a hissy fit. And nobody is complaining that I know of.</p><p> Again, I didn't post this to be arguementative. Only that a much larger sample size hasn't supported this arguement over a long period of time.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No problem. Being you used the same bullet.... then .130" of erosion is very excessive. Why... would be hard to say at this point without returning the barrel to as-new conditions and starting over. Have you fire-lapped the bore by any chance?</p><p></p><p>Steve</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Steve Shelp, post: 184729, member: 22"] Eddie, Not sure what to say. I don't doubt your data. The data I base my opinion on is several barrel makers over several years in keeping stats for 600 and 1000yd competition. If there was an issue with double base powders being harder on barrels it would show up real quick. But we haven't seen this. I'm talking about keeping track of match stats across many states, all barrel makers, over an 11 year time period and nobody can conclusively say that double base powders are harder on a barrel during this time. This is one big advantage of competition shooting. You get large amounts of data in a shorter period of time for things like this. Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying your data is false or incorrect. But it does contradict the results of a much larger sampling size over a much larger period of time. Obviosuly something doesn't add up here. What cleaning solvents were used, rate of fire, etc etc?? We don't know. Excessive erosion in 450rds would have competition shooters in a hissy fit. And nobody is complaining that I know of. Again, I didn't post this to be arguementative. Only that a much larger sample size hasn't supported this arguement over a long period of time. No problem. Being you used the same bullet.... then .130" of erosion is very excessive. Why... would be hard to say at this point without returning the barrel to as-new conditions and starting over. Have you fire-lapped the bore by any chance? Steve [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Shocked at how much throat erosion
Top