450 366:

Daryl's point about comparisons is a good one. And pressure ALONE, to my way of thinking really isn't the proof of much of anything in this issue, so I agree Barnes ad slick isn't adressing all the specific issues relating to the specific damage being reported.

Merely measuring a pressure curve in one barrel isn't going to be relevant to the damage that may have occurred in another barrel of different internal AND external dimensions. And the latter does appear to be relevant in this issue where it normally is not when we refer to typical sporter-weight bolt action barrels.

I'd like to see pictures of the damaged barrels. I have a sort-of mental picture of where OSR might occur {due to pressure curve and barrel thickness} but have never seen it. I have however, seen some very thin custom mountain rifle barrels that operate at much higher pressures than typical NE rifles and have demonstrated no damage, but then they were made with modern steel.

Are the offending bullets fully engraved to groove depth when they leave the barrels of the damaged rifles? If so, at what point in the barrel do they reach complete engraving? It would seem that beyond that point, no OSR would occur {tho rapid rifling wear might still occur}. So does OSR occur in the breech 1/2 of the barrel, the thickest part? Or, do the bullets engrave so "slowly" and thus over a long portion of barrel that they are "pushing" rifling out all along that longer portion of the barrel before they are fully engraved? With the high costs of doubles involved and the relatively cheap cost to run a relevant experiment, it would seem logical to suggest that maybe such experiments have already been run and could be referecned here for us?

It would also help to know if it is the actual bullets refered to in the Barnes ad that ruined barrels or somebody else's. In disparaging a product, it is prudent to make sure the criticism is directed at the actual product said to be the culprit... Barnes themselves seem to admit that UN-banded bullets are prone to mischief but the bullets they refer to in the ad are not un-banded. Direct documentation of comparisons of different loads and the rifles in which they have been fired, including barrel wall thickness would also help if such comparisons exist.

I'd be interested to see a direct comparison of the compressability of thick steel-jacketed Woodleighs vs. the driving-band Barnes bullets.

In observing undersize recovered bullets from one of my rifles it is obvious that full groove depth has not occured on one side of the bullet. If this occurs with a mono-metal bullet and involves some amount of tipping in a thin-tubed double barrel, does that tipping cause some problem?

The accusations made against Barnes intuitively sound plausible to me, but it would be nice to put the issue to rest with facts since it would seem Barnes is making a bold assertion of product suitability and that assertion is being put directly not to owners of NEF Handi-Rifles, but to those who own very expensive rifles and who are likely to be in a position to make Barnes eat their words if Barnes is wrong. And no, I actually do not believe it would be that difficult to make a problem of this for Barnes, either as a suit or as a claim against their commercial liability carrier IF they are dead wrong and their assertions lead to damage caused by their bullets. I'm not guaranteeing a win of course, but such action, particularly of a repeated nature, would be hard to ignore by any company.

Since "dozens" of rifles are said to have been damaged, I would think that at least some one or two of the rifles would have been high value guns and some number of their owners would have gone after Barnes for promoting the specific bullets mentioned in the ad posted by RIPP.

Unless those bullets were not the ones that actually caused the damage.