Curl, great question! I don't know the answer. Maybe somebody can call them and ask. They seem to be very eager to provide any info I've requested. {Remember, too, I've never shot a Barnes Banded Solid, and have never tried to size one in my drawing dies, either.}

450___366:

If you read my posts, I would think that you would think I'm trying to hawk Heym, Merkel and Chapuis doubles!!

Maybe something is lacking in the translation, but I am NOT, repeat NOT, a "proponent" of Barnes bullets for doubles, per se. All I have done here is to ask questions about the bold assertions of some who have condemned Barnes. That is all. I've given my opinions as to what I think might be occurring, but I am not a ballistician and I am not an expert. I've never said I was.

I totally agree that there may be some internal ballistic mechanism that causes damage to doubles when certain "hard" bullets are used, a mechanism that may be difficult to prove or to disprove. But what is a "hard" bullet? Is it ONLY a monolithic solid, or is JPK's "heirarchy" of bullet hardnesses closer to the truth: "Soft"=NF..."Harder"=Woodleigh..."Hard"=Barnes?

I have attempted merely to present as many facts and suppositions as I can, not "in support" of either side, since I really do not know the truth in the matter. One side, Barnes, has been willing to converse and provide their "proofs". The other side has disappeared and is silent. Why? If their views are so universally accepted, proven beyond a doubt and obvious to even the uninformed, then why have they not provided a single shred of proof as in photos of damaged guns and of recovered bullets, documentation, measurements of recovered or engraved bullets and bores, etc. Heck, we've been told that one fellow has seen "dozens" of guns wrecked by {which bullets...?} mono bullets. I have no axe to grind. I asked questions in good faith and in anticipation of good faith answers. Others have offered money and as far as I know there is yet $400 laying "on the table" even yet.

Bwananelson's reference to the book source is the closest we get. Checking it with Barnes Oehler tests would be interesting {"How much pressure does it take to bulge the test barrel"?}. But so far absolutely ZERO from those who made the boldest assertions at the start of this thread. And absolutely NOTHING at all about "BARNES BANDED SOLIDS" which we must remember is, after all, the topic RIPP posted about. We shouldn't condemn BBS because XYZ mono's wrecked a barrel. Unless it is also acceptable to condemn Hornady's because Woodleighs wrecked a barrel, or some such other poor logic.

I find it interesting that when an attempt to dig for the truth is made in this matter, it is so hard to get info from one side while I am accused of supporting the other side which, actually, I am not. All I am interested in is the truth. Are we all here simply to bow down and accept in some puppet-like manner the suppositions of one side only? Which side??

Rereading the first half of the thread, it is pretty obvious some have vehement aggression toward Barnes. I have merely attempted to find out just exactly why.

If you want to know my personal opinion, it is this: I suspect that the "hardness" of a bullet may indeed cause damage to some guns {excessive barrel wear, but not bulging, with some "mono" bullets IS a repeated problem cited by my military sources some of which I've cited}, but other factors may also come into play in a matrix of effects and some other factors may even be in some cases more important than the bullet, the bullet merely being "the last straw": internal bore/groove dimensions, handload pressure, OAL, gun quality and gun condition to name a few.

AND I suspect that mono bullets are not the only "hard" bullets out there. When it comes to shooting a thin-tubed double that I may have paid a lot of money for, I personally would be very careful indeed about what I shot thru it and I don't blame anybody for steering clear of this or that bullet for whatever reason...

...and, my humble opinion is that I suspect there just may be many "fine doubles" that after the use they have been subjected to and/or age and/or original materials of construction should be shelved with their chambers welded shut, because if not, and if they continue to be shot, may at some point "let go", and when such a gun lets go with a Woodleigh or a Barnes Banded Solid, the bullets shouldn't be blamed, no matter how much money the fellow paid for the gun. Just because it's beautifully made and frightfully expensive doesn't mean it's safe.

CAVEAT EMPTOR