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
The Solid Bullet Debate
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="JeffVN" data-source="post: 289843" data-attributes="member: 2261"><p>Noel</p><p></p><p>I'll jump in on the barel issue then with a quick question that have been lurking in my head for a while. </p><p></p><p>If there are barrel materials that can withstand hotter temps and higher pressures, what incentive does a barrel manufacturer have in switching over to a material that lasts longer and needs to be replaced less frequently. Obviously they would need to charge more for each such high tech barrel. Can he dio it with his existing equiment. If not, how do I , a single consumer, get a manufacturer to make that financial commitment?</p><p></p><p>I clearly see the benefit to me - a high intensity shooter - I put 1,700 rounds through a F-Class 7WSM in the last 2 years before I took it off and recycled it (most folks would say I went at least 500 rounds too many in this barrel but she was a hammer til teh end when it died all at once as I was told it would). During the same time period I put at least a 1,000 rounds through my .260 and a .308 for practice so that I didn't shoot out the barrel any earlier than necessary. To me a barrel is a $650.00 dollar consumable (the blank runs 350-400 but you still need it chambered and head spaced to your rifle). </p><p></p><p>Granted, I would also strongly consider switching to different - meaning more intensive - chamberings or hotter loads to shoot if I could get a barrel for my 7WSM that would last 2,500-3,000 rounds. Am I correct in connecting the link bewteen the new barrels, the statement about new propellants, and greater velocities... If so, now you've got my attention in a big way.</p><p></p><p>JeffVN</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JeffVN, post: 289843, member: 2261"] Noel I'll jump in on the barel issue then with a quick question that have been lurking in my head for a while. If there are barrel materials that can withstand hotter temps and higher pressures, what incentive does a barrel manufacturer have in switching over to a material that lasts longer and needs to be replaced less frequently. Obviously they would need to charge more for each such high tech barrel. Can he dio it with his existing equiment. If not, how do I , a single consumer, get a manufacturer to make that financial commitment? I clearly see the benefit to me - a high intensity shooter - I put 1,700 rounds through a F-Class 7WSM in the last 2 years before I took it off and recycled it (most folks would say I went at least 500 rounds too many in this barrel but she was a hammer til teh end when it died all at once as I was told it would). During the same time period I put at least a 1,000 rounds through my .260 and a .308 for practice so that I didn't shoot out the barrel any earlier than necessary. To me a barrel is a $650.00 dollar consumable (the blank runs 350-400 but you still need it chambered and head spaced to your rifle). Granted, I would also strongly consider switching to different - meaning more intensive - chamberings or hotter loads to shoot if I could get a barrel for my 7WSM that would last 2,500-3,000 rounds. Am I correct in connecting the link bewteen the new barrels, the statement about new propellants, and greater velocities... If so, now you've got my attention in a big way. JeffVN [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
The Solid Bullet Debate
Top