I for one, cannot see why a barrel would split or solder joints come loose from shooting an undersized bullet that produces less pressure and obviously less hoop-stress than a normal jacketed bullet.

Were the barrels that were damaged actually undersize in groove diameter, thus increasing pressure and hoop stress? It is the hoop-stress that caused barrels to expand in diameter as the bullet passes?

I am merely talking about physics and commmon sense. That the specifed damage has happened, I'll take knowledgable people's word on, but I'd just like to hear why or what exactly caused this problem.

Can the hoop-stress which needs be the cause of the splits in barrel and solder joints, be excessive in a bullet that doesn't even make it to the bottom of the grooves and where in fact, it is producing low overall pressure for the ctg. involved? This doesn't make sense. Wild statements to the contrary don't cut it. To my way of thinking, Barnes brought up the obturation deal to show their bullets aren't expanding from pressure and therefore aren't exerting the deeded stress on the barrel steel. That some people missed this is evident. It speaks of common sense. They bought up 'other' mono bullet construction of 'naval bronze' and ctg. brass which is much stronger and harder than ordinary brass, as a comparrison to show their bullets were and are 'softer' than the 'others', and not for any other reason. A non-obturating bullet produces less stress on about any barrel I'm familiar with. Why would a double produce different results with non-obturating bullets? That a Woodleigh is squeezed down by the bottoms of the grooves shows they are indeed oversize in bores that produce this result. An obturating bullet produces more stress on a barrel than one that doesn't. Again, common sense back by empirical evidence. One must use common horse sense along with ballistic knowledge here to find out what's happening when faced with glaring statements that have no 'data' attached. Questions such as these needs be answered, in my humble opinion, of course.