Quality of New Mass Produced Rifles

[jvs]

Did anybody here ever study the current quality of new products that are pushed out of the factories?  I'm not asking about accuracy.  I am basically asking for a breakdown of forged receivers along with the inclusion of stamped vs machined parts.  Button rifling vs deeper cut and Plastic parts vs Aluminum or Steel and Barrel steel compositon.  Finally, fit and finish.

Some manufacturers should stand out above the rest.  Savage is accurate but at what price to quality of parts.  

I have convinced myself that I will NOT buy a rifle with button rifling.  If I'd want a Marlin with micro-groove, which I don't, I'd buy one.  Another thing that worries me is the composition of the steel used for barrels.  I am hearing stories from some of the local gunsmiths that throat erosion is evident to the naked eye on some new rifles after just 10 shots.   How long will a barrel like that last?  Granted that erosion starts with the first shot but the rate of erosion should be alot longer than that.

That may mean that I won't buy anything new, unless it's European, but at least I'll have something that's made to last.

I am not asking for personal preference.  What I am asking for is someone to comment without prejudice.  

The thing is, I see rifles on the racks with prices anywhere from the mid $500's up to $1000 and more and not one of them had a metal trigger guard.  Most of them had button rifling.

I may be destined to buying the older stuff that was built to last, instead of buying the garbage that is currently being offered.  It seems like the manufacturers are in a race to make a rifle at the cheapest cost with materials that arent made to last.  

It may be funny to them but it isn't to me.

[Patriot_1776]

I have convinced myself that I will NOT buy a rifle with button rifling.

I'm afraid your choice of "affordable" rifles is very limited in my opinion, as I believe many mass-produced rifles have such.  When you are looking at other rifling procedures, such as cut rifling, that is usally only offered on custom made barrels.  And also reserved for only the finest target rifles or barrels.  Although the button-rifling is not an inaccurate or terrible feature, it is the least expensive.  I've read at Krieger Barrels (www.kriegerbarrels.com) that they do cut-rifling on their barrels, and their barrel prices can run alittle more, as the cutting is done removing .0001" of steel for every pass.  That ensures the best concentricity and accuracy.  Also, they say it induces no stress upon the steel.  Either way, that is why they are still in business; because people always want what's better, when they can afford it.  Kind of like choosing between a Silverado 1500 or F-150 and a Cadillac EXT.  They are in a sense, pick-ups and have the same purpose somewhat, but one has more to offer than the other on the side of comfort.   Same difference, as the custom barrels with cut-rifled barrels have more possible accuracy to offer than the button-rifled.  Hope this answered your question on the "barrel" side of the issue.  Patriot

[safetysheriff]

Weatherby Vanguards at 'some' Wal Marts going for $250!  :shock:

Vanguard: hammer-forged barrel; metal trigger guard and hinged-floorplate magazine; heavy-duty synthetic stock made in America; Howa's 1500 action -- I believe; excellent bluing; excellent barrel'd action-to-metal fit.    Semi-adjustable trigger.    A host of calibers from .223 up to .300 Weatherby Mag'  :-D         I love 'em.

ADL synthetic at some Wal Marts going for $300!  

Remington ADL Synthetic:  plastic trigger guard, BUT: excellent hammer-forged barrel; includes iron sights; pressure bedded barrel in an acceptable stock; available in .223 all the way up to .300 Win' Magnum; three-way, fully adjustable trigger!    

You haven't been looking in the right places!    Just stay away from those
Saaaaa......    SSSSSSaaaaaaaa......

I can't say it!  :roll:

SS'

[Patriot_1776]

Just stay away from those
Saaaaa...... SSSSSSaaaaaaaa......

SS,

I never got exactly what you are "trying" to pronounce.  I'm inclined to think you are trying to say:

Savage: "Sah-Vage"  short "A" for first syllable, and short "A" for second syllable.  Just want to know what you meant.  And trying to help you if that is the word.    :lol:   Patriot

[jvs]

Unless some of you guys can tell me what the Metallurgical properties of the barrel of your favorite rifle is, you are giving me your personal preference.

Cheap steel can be forged and heat treated but that doesn't make it a finer grade of steel.

Gun barrels and Receivers should be made with a certain amount of specific additives.

I'd be willing to bet that some Bicycles are made out of better steel than some rifles.

You can take cheap steel and forge it, treat it and make it pretty with a nice bluing job.  But if you start with lemons, you still get lemonade.

It wasn't always like it is today.  I wonder what it would cost Winchester to make a rifle like the older Model 70's or have Remington make some of the older Remingtons.  Without all the changes that cost cutting brought about in the last 40 years.   You can almost bet that the barrel composition has changed in that time.

I can still buy what I want in a firearm, the only thing is it can't be anything new.  The rise of a few cents in cost souldnt mean a reduction in quality parts.

[tuck2]

I purchased my first rifle some 54 years ago. Since then got some cheep and expensive firearms. What counted was the five shot 100 Yds. group size that I could get with reloads off a bench rest. One never knows untill the rifle is fired but I,v had better luck with the more costly rifles. Some of the rifles shot better after glass bedding the action, free floating the barrel,lapping the bolt locking lugs,and adjusting the trigger. If a rifle shots a shotgun pattern trade it off and try another fire modle and brand. Whenever one selects a fire arm, you could get a bummer or a tack driver. Good luck.

[Dolph26]

I'd be interested to know how much the prices of rifles have changed over the years and why.  Let's take a 1970 Winchester M70, and a similar 2004 Winchester M70.  Making the 1970 and 2004 dollar equal, how much more expensive are they, and what has changed in the construction of the rifle.  Is it really the cost of materials, production, and manufacture, or is it the cost of marketing, liability, and other legal costs.  I am 27 years old, and am intrigued when wiser guys like yourselves speak of the older rifles and the differences in quality that I may have missed.
Good hunting!

[Graybeard]

half_inch_group, I truly believe you are for some reason operating under some real false assumptions.

The steel in most of today's mass produced rifles is far superior to the best available 50 years ago. It's not selected for it's cheapness but it's suitability to the job asked of it.

Many operate under the assumption that one rifling method is vastly superior to another. This too is just plain myth. Perfectly good and acceptable barrels are made with all rifling methods. All have their pluses and minues. No method is perfect or even superior to the others. Some of the very top names in custom barrels use each and every one of them except hammer forging. That is just way too expensive or any but the really large outfits to use. But it too makes great barrels or awful ones just like all other methods.

It's the quality that counts not the rifling method.

[jvs]

If what I'm hearing is true about visual throat erosion after a half of a box of shells, then it is a little more than an assumption.  Something else has to be going on.   This is not a 'whisper down the alley' thing.

Todays steel can indeed be superior to the grades made 50 years ago because of the process of todays newer furnaces, especially for the M1-A1.  As an ex Electric Furnace Operator/Crew Leader, I should know.  If you watch the news on tv you will see some of my past work dutifully blasting the crap out of the enemy.  I know what the business end of a Tank can do and I get a certain amount of satisfaction out of it too.  But like everything else, you can only get out of a gun barrel what you put into them.

There is a difference between a manufacturer who makes rifles for the general hunting public and one that makes cannons for the Military.    For instance, there's a reason why a Remington Sniper rifle costs more than a ADL or a Savage 110.  Materials, Workmanship etc.

As far as rifling goes, I just have a preference for other than button rifling and I will no longer consider a rifle with such.  Just because button rifling is cheap enough at the manufacturing end to be produced in one pass doesn't mean it's the best for long term performance at my end.

To Dolph26,

You are at a good age to do some research of the older hunting firearms produced in the past.  There were some real dandys made over the years and some of them will rock your socks.  The feel, the fit and finish, the components... have changed.  Some for the good.

This is a good forum to learn from, especially for the older models.  Alot of people come here without personal brand preference and see the beauty in the quality of pride in materials and workmanship.  Others, like me, yearn for the old days and bi*ch about it.

[Questor]

They are better today than ever. Today's cheap wal-mart specials are better than most of the custom rifles of 30 years ago. Modern manufacturing, design, quality control, and materials is so far superior that it surprises me that the question has even come up.

People used to think one inch groups were something special. Now they're expected as normal, even from relatively cheap guns.  

Parallel this with cars. 50 years ago you'd get your picture in Popular Mechanics magazine for owning a car with more than 80,000 miles on it, and they'd marvel at how well you took care of it.  Today, we routinely buy used cars with that many miles on them and drive them for years longer.

[mountainview]

Qeustor and Swampman make some astute observations. As to todays firearms being made with materials that will wear out, hmmmmm....., check the plastic items in a landfill in a century or two and see how much they have degraded from today. As a materials scientist, I proffer that plastics are not any better or worse as an engineering material though design and usage do influence their effectiveness. Consumer perception is another matter entirely.

My new mass produced cheapies perform every bit as well as those I bought, apparently, when real rifles were made back when I was younger. One can not fault the manufacturers for cost cutting, doing so is as realistic as expecting an inividual to maintain a lavish lifestyle even while they are taking paycuts year after year.

I think the key difference is not so much in the rifle but rather the consumer and his/her expectations. Many consumers now expect their firearms to be maintenance free yet function perfectly forever, most particularly with the lower cost firearms. Yet they exclaim shock, horror, and bemoan the lack of quality in today's firearms when their neglected firearm fails to perform at some point. Interestingly enough many also expect handcrafted firearms with all metal and wood construction at prices little changed from decades ago while overlooking the spiraling increase in materials costs.

With respect to rifling methods, tribology is still more art than science so I tend not to take claims regarding the superiority of one method over another very seriously. With the notable lack of scientifically controlled experimentation and unbiased data available on the topic, one is better served ignoring such claims entirely.

Well folks, I'm off to the woods.

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Throat erosion in what calibers?


I can see that happening with a .300 RUM or a .223 WSSM------but we didn't have these hot numbers out 50 years ago either.

On the whole----today's rifles are MUCH better than the old ones-----aside from some really flimsy synthetic stocks I've been seeing lately. What is missing these days is all the hand work that was common back then----the CNC machine does those jobs now.

To get into some of the nicer rifles these days---you're going to have to spend at least $1000. That's not to say the $500 rifle won't shoot as good or last as long-----it just won't be as pretty as the $1000 rifle.

I'm not sure what the complaint is here-----today we have guns to match all tastes and budgets-----so its all good.

As much as I really don't like Savages and such-----I'm sure you'd be very hard pressed to actually wear it out or break something major---------plus its cheap enough that you could re-barrel it every couple years if you so desired.


I also recall seeing on the History channel-----or something like that----a gun back in the old days would cost several months salary to buy------now that $1000 rifle is a half a months salary to buy(on average)-----you actually are getting more value these days than back then.

Guess the bottom line is: Stop being a tightwad and pony up the cash for what you really want :roll: .

[safetysheriff]

I'll say this for today's metallurgy and for hammer-forging of barrels: every stainless steel Ruger revolver and rifle I've cleaned has had no problem with copper fouling -- even when brand new!    Ruger did have problems with barrels years ago; but today they make their own barrels seemingly having recognized the errors of their old ways.   I can clean a new Ruger in stainless in no time after putting lead or jacketed bullets through it.     They must be awefully smooth right out of the box.  

Button rifling is done by some of the best bench-rest manufactureres, probably to include Lilja among others.    It can be done in such a way that when the barrel is lapped you will have quite a shooter.     But I don't lap barrels so I prefer the hammer-forged types....specifically by Ruger and Remington, and most recently by Howa......which I hope will also turn out as well.     I disagree that hammer forging is not an advantage, since it can lead to a more compact grain structure, if I remember correctly, which will produce a better, somewhat longer-lasting barrel.    

Winchester wooden stocks I've seen lately have been the most beautiful things I've ever looked at........after the beauty of a good woman!  

I think someone is beating a dead horse about the metallurgy.    My old Maastricht bolt-action'd Beaumont had EXCELLENT fit of the metal parts, but it probably had nickel in the barrel steel (wouldn't take bluing!) and wouldn't last with smokeless propellants.    It was built in 1878 I believe.    I'd rather have a Remington or a Ruger for sure.

SS'

[MGMorden]

I'm with the newer is better guys here.  Modern science has improved a lot of of the manufacturing processes.  Yes there have been cost cutting measures.  A lot of people  complain about the plastic trigger guards on new rifles, but honestly, how many of them have you ever broken?  I've got 4 guns with plastic trigger guards, 2 of which have seen and continue to see some pretty rugged abuse.  I've never had one break on me, nor have I ever even noticed if the "experience" would somehow be better if it were metal.  I've got quite a few milsurps in my collection, including one sporterized Swede Mauser.  It's got all metal parts and what not, but I still wouldn't consider it any better than my Savage (which shoots groups half the size of the Swede).    To me any gun that works reliability and will shoot accurately is a good gun.  Anything that doesn't effect those two quality are superflous.  I think we just have a case of the "good ol' days" syndrome here :lol:.

[jvs]

Even though I justify my tirade about button rifling as opposed to the deeper cut style as a personal preference, I stand by my assertion that some bicycle frames are made of better quality steel than some of the current offering of gun barrels produced by some of the major rifle manufacturers, except for a very few models.

While I have no Metallurgical degree, I have enough experience in Specialty Steel Processing to know what makes a good product.  Anybody can come to a conclusion about performance based on holes in a target but that in no way tells the story of materials used in a process.

Just don't be so sure that when you see pitting in or on a barrel that it automatically comes from not keeping the metal clean and dry.

[bchannell]

The truth is button rifling is not cheap. I know "cheap" is a relative term, but gun makers generally use the cheapest method that is acceptable for the application. Most factory barrels are hammer forged, because it's, you guessed it, cheap. Hammer forging makes some fine barrels, as does cut, or broached (button) rifled barrels. I don't think there is a huge difference in quality given a high degree of expertise of the maker. I respect you decision against button rifling, but you must be aware that you cut out nearly all of the custom barrel makers, such as Lilja, Hart, Shilen, Douglas, and I'm sure several more. I wouldn't sneeze at a barrel that can shoot 1/2" groups at 100 yards from a factory rifle, even if they rifled it with a garden hoe pulled through the bore with a farm tractor.

[MGMorden]

I stand by my assertion that some bicycle frames are made of better quality steel than some of the current offering of gun barrels produced by some of the major rifle manufacturers, except for a very few models.

I have no doubt of that.  I have a friend who payed $1500 for his mountain bike.  That's a lot more than the $300 I paid for my Savage.  It still shoots sub-MOA though .

[longwinters]

Yeh, and those expensive mountain bikes don't shoot worth a hoot! :lol:  :lol:

Long

[Donaldo]

Half inch,  I don't know where you came up with the idea of cheap steel in barrels.  The steel is better now than ever.  There is no doubt that the fit and finish of a lot of the run of the mill rifles today is lacking in time spent in the finish.  You can't pay machinists 25 to 50 dollars and hour to do the finish and then sell the rifle for $500 and make a profit.  You can still buy what you are talking about, just look up the Dakota rifles.  I think they start at about $2,500 and up.  So if you want to pay $500 or so for a rifle and have it look like a Dakota, forget it, it ain't gona happen.  And yes some bicycles have very good steel in them.  My son paid $2,500 for a bike in Italy made to his measurements and shipped over here.  Fantastic piece of work, but he paid for it and that was 10 or 12 years ago.  Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Graybeard]

The problem with your bicycle vs. barrel steel analogy is that it takes totally different steels to be right for each task. The steel used in barrels would make lousy bike frames and the steel used in bike frames woud make lousy rifle barrels. The properties needed are not even remotely similar.

There are narrow limits for barrel steel that mean all the needed properties. Too hard is just as bad as too soft. I honestly think you are as I said just operating under some mistaken assumptions regarding barrels and the steels they are made of. You mention that you're not a metalurgist but feel you have a handle on it. Some times a little knowledge is more dangerous than none or a lot either.

Selection of the correct steel for their barrels is a serious consideration for all barrel makers. There are a lot of possible steels that can be used. No one is ideal for all makers or all uses. No matter which is selected it is a compromise based on the assumptions the barrel maker choses regarding the uses to which it will be put. This is in stark contrast to days of old when few steels were available and they had to use what was available not what the felt was best based on it's metallurgical properties as they all do now.

[sgtt]

I doubt if a $1500 mountain bike has a steel frame.

[jvs]

Well GB, I know I have seen the paperwork on some bicycles that specifically state that the composition of the steel in the frame was CrVMo, and without going into too much detail about percentages, lets just say that the recipe rings a bell with me.  

While I may not know a everything about 'specialty' steel properties, I know enough to make a comment about the steel used in todays firearms which is at the lower end of the specialty steel spectrum.   It might seem like just a little knowledge to you, but if I told you the application of some of the steel that I had a hand in, for which you have no need to know, you may not be so quick with your  retort.  I made steel that was sold by the pound, not by the ton.  Before anyone says that Remington can't be buying that kind of steel for rifles, let me say that it is the quality of the steel process that matters.  Regardless how big the pot is.  So if anybody can tell me the sulfur content of some of the mass produced barrels I might be able to get into a upper level conversation instead of defending a personal attack regarding a unsubstantiated innuendo of my ignorance.   :grin:  

If anybody can tell me how forcing a carbide button down a tube is better than cutting, I'd be glad to hear it.  It might be cheaper and easier, and shorter on the shop floor, but it is in no way better for longevity, IMO.  Very little, if any steel is removed in forcing a button down a barrel, just pushed to the side.   If you think of the physics involved in that movement, it doesn't take much thought to theorize that button rifling is much rougher in the bore than any other rifling process and is more apt to wear out.  That doesn't mean that button rifling is not responsible for better accruacy at the onset.  

Most Custom BR barrels are button rifled, and few of them seem to last much more than 1,100 rounds (sound familiar?) before they start to open up and can not be used for competition.

[Hooker]

[quote="Most Custom BR barrels are button rifled, and few of them seem to last much more than 1,100 rounds (sound familiar?) before they start to open up and can not be used for competition.[/quote]

I do'nt think you can fairly compare competition rifles to off the shelf rifles. Few if any store bought run of the mill rifles can produce enough accuracy to make a little ware a issue. In competition a few thousands of an inch can be the difference in winning and losing. If this is a longevity issue only time will tell how long the barrel on your favorite deer gun will last for most people this will be several generations. For serious competition shooter and varmint hunter this may only be several thuonsand rounds. The life expectency of a barrel is relative to the accuracy you want. The more accuracy you want the shorter the life span of the barrel. ( All things being equal)
Gun makers know that shooters are a demanding group. They wont sell to many guns if their product has a rep for excessive ware. I would think that a barrel that shows extreme ware in as little as 10 rounds would be an unsafe product. All in all I'd say todays guns are sound if lacking a bit in fit and finish. The biggest trouble with firearms is over comming all the myths that get started over someone preference.

Pat

[MGMorden]

I doubt if a $1500 mountain bike has a steel frame.

Possbily not.  I'm not into the mountain biking so I'm not familiar with the stuff available.  I just know that the price was $1500, which is more than the average gun for sure.

[Graybeard]

So if anybody can tell me the sulfur content of some of the mass produced barrels I might be able to get into a upper level conversation instead of defending a personal attack regarding a unsubstantiated innuendo of my ignorance.

You misunderstand my intent. It is not to make an attack on you. It is to try to educate you on what I perceive as false assumptions on your part. It seems to me you are assuming barrel steel should be of a high hardness and of some specific alloying content. If so then that's not the case. Too hard is perhaps worse than too soft. If I recall correctly and perhaps I don't I think the correct hardness level that manufacturers have concluded is ideal is in the high 30s range on the RC scale.

The alloying properties are as much a concern in ease of drilling that initial hole and then rifling as anything.

While I won't disagree that the button rifling process is a tramatic experience for the barrel that doesn't make it inferior just because of that. Some of the most accurate barrels around are button rifled. It's just as valid a process as any and barrels of just as high quality are produced that way as any.

Most Custom BR barrels are button rifled, and few of them seem to last much more than 1,100 rounds (sound familiar?) before they start to open up and can not be used for competition.

This comment (to me at least) proves the validity of my point I'm trying to get across. That being that you are making false assumptions.

BR competitors must put all bullets in the same hole to stand a chance of winning. While most folks would love a rifle that shoots in the 0.1's or 0.2's at 100 yards that's not acceptable at all in the BR game. So yes no matter the make of barrel they don't shoot one long before changing it out for another. That barrel however would do fine for long range varminting for many thousands more rounds. It's not worn out, just doesn't any longer have the super fine edge needed in BR shooting. That they use button rifled barrels should tell anyone with open eyes it is a perfectly good method of rifling barrels. If it were not no BR shooter would be using it.

Not a personal attack. Just my observation that you're not looking at this with an open mind. You've become fixated on button rifled barrels and the specific alloying of barrel steel. I don't think you and I are ever gonna agree on this one. So best to agree to disagree.

[Mac11700]

If what I'm hearing is true about visual throat erosion after a half of a box of shells, then it is a little more than an assumption. Something else has to be going on. This is not a 'whisper down the alley' thing.

If it isn't a whisper down the alley thing as you say...which manufacture and which caliber is causing this visable to the naked eye throat erosion? I would be real interested in knowing this.....

As far as cheap rifles...I'm assuming your talking of course about cost of manufacturing...and if that is the case...one just has to look at the accuracy of some of the NEF's Handi rifles and see that they have thousands of rounds put thru them and and still group rather well and none of  these are assembled for any benchrest usage...and for bolt guns...the most accurate rifle I ever owned was a Winchester Westerner with a 26" Hammer forged barrel in 270 Win,1/4" groups were the norm it shot...with some coming in much smaller...it outshot quite a few true bench guns in its sporter configuration and did it with high pressure loads without any visable throat eroision hardly any throat eroision when scoped...same to for my 270 Winchester Classic...not quite as accurate...but still capable of .315" groups with the right handloads...and there was no throat eroision visable to the naked eye in it at all..........

So which manufacture and which caliber are you talking about please??


Mac.

[jvs]

So far none of you guys haven't even come close to answering the basic premise of my initial post.

I asked if anyone has looked into the process of parts in todays mass produced rifles and how they may have changed over the last 40 years.  I brought up the things that are evident, such as Plastic parts, Synthetic Stocks etc.  I also voiced a preference for Cut rifling vs button rifling. I also repeated a complaint by a bunch of local gunsmiths/BR shooters about the throat erosion appearing on new production rifles.
 
I amused reading all of this stuff about modern steel, custom barrels, heat treating, forging and the like but no one so far has answered me about the composition of the metal used in todays rifles.  I realize that it may well be a trade secret which is almost impossible to learn from a manufacturer.  I was hoping that someone had done metallurgical tests on barrels lately and was willing to report it before I opened up about the brand complained about at the range.

While this is NOT 'whisper down the alley', I will not be the first one to start it without further discovery.  I hesitate to plant hearsay about a specific producer on a forum like this.  Not to keep the buyer in the cold, but because talk without proof is Libel.

Finally, I fail to see what part of button rifling and competition shooting that I either missed or don't understand.   I understand that button rifling is quicker than any other, it uses fewer man hours and only uses on 'push' throught the barrel.  I also know that BR shooters prefer button rifling in SS because of the accuracy and that their barrels usually have a definite life for accuracy.  

I also know that button rifling in a production rifle may last for far fewer rounds, perhaps half as many.

Now add the possibility of inferior steel and there could be real trouble on the horizon.

[Donaldo]

Half inch,
Why don't you go to some of the barrel makers sites and read all the info they have on making barrels.  Lilja, Kreiger, and douglas all have very specific info on their manufacturing processes and the type of steel they use.  If you are not willing to state the specific gun you are refereing too, then all you have said so far about the steel quality is mostly BS.  I too know some gunsmiths and have never heard anyone say anything about shooting out a barrel in a box or less of ammo.  This is ludicrous.  Now as to the quality of finish, etc, you are right, it is far inferior to what was available in the past, for the lower priced run of the mill off the rack rifle.  As I stated before, you can still buy that quality of finish if you are willing to pay for it, so just what is your actual gripe?

[jvs]

Half inch,
Why don't you go to some of the barrel makers sites and read all the info they have on making barrels.  Lilja, Kreiger, and douglas all have very specific info on their manufacturing processes and the type of steel they use.  If you are not willing to state the specific gun you are refereing too, then all you have said so far about the steel quality is mostly BS.  I too know some gunsmiths and have never heard anyone say anything about shooting out a barrel in a box or less of ammo.  This is ludicrous.  Now as to the quality of finish, etc, you are right, it is far inferior to what was available in the past, for the lower priced run of the mill off the rack rifle.  As I stated before, you can still buy that quality of finish if you are willing to pay for it, so just what is your actual gripe?

Donaldo,

        With all due respect, What part of Manufacturers Specs don't you understand?

Never in my original post did I ask for the specs of custom barrels.  I thought I asked for specs from the mass producers.  Big manufacturers can have it any way they want it, regardless where they order it from.

Maybe I should learn sign language so I can answer guys like you, because evidently when your mouth opens, your eyes and ears close.

[Mac11700]

half_inch_group:

Your acting like you got a secret and you don't want anyone else to know...most manufactures won't tell you the composition of the steel they use in the barrels... or the exact procedures they use to heat treat it..or where they buy it from...and yes...some do it for liability...others claasify it for different reasons...never-the-less...if what your wanting is a detailed structural analysis of the differences between a button rifled and cut rifled barrel and how long they will last...detailing the last 40 years of production rifles...I really don't know where one would go about getting such a report.....and since you won't for liability sake name the manufacture or the load your talking about that is causing the problem with your throat erosion...what really is the point of even mentioning it...as you can see...most here don't have that problem...

Mac