Thanks Peter.

I think you have presented here more technical data from the OSR Camp than I've ever read before on this Forum! But still you haven't given proof of a double being damaged by a Barnes bullet.

And that damage is, among other things, a spiral pattern of rifling pressed out and visible on the outside of the barrel from stern to stem.

You are right on with rifling types, too, as they present varying amounts of resistance to a bullet.

YES, I wholeheartedly agree that the shank size of the bullet must or at least could be a factor and thank you for saying so. It seems to be so in my own sizing "experiments".

And the Barnes statement you highlight in red, well, I also agree...pretty broad-sweeping it is. To me, it is meaningful only if correct diameter bullets are shot thru a gun, but even then, it is a very inclusive and confident statement. I do not think I'd make that statement myself if I were them.

As for bullet diameters though, I slug all my older guns. Why, because as you state, they vary. In my 9.3 rifles I custom size bullets to fit. I simply cannot imagine a fellow buying any double and then NOT slugging it, and knowing all relevant measurements, especially if they are handloading for it. And as for bullets, I'd be checking every bullet type for size and frankly, I'd check every lot change also. I thought that went without saying, but maybe not. Maybe some double gun owners have shot oversize bullets thru their rifles and damaged them. Or maybe, as I believe you and I touched on in the PM's, some old guns {and poorly made new ones...} are merely damaged by being fired at all.

I'm not telling anyone to use Barnes or A-Square or a new Remington or Hornady or any other bullet in their guns. As Bwananelson says, use what you like, "it's your gun". I'm simply saying this; if the damage is extensive and everywhere, then let them show evidence of it. I cannot imagine that no one has done private testing on this issue when it involves guns of tens of thousands of dollars value. People do stuff that costs hundreds of dollars as a hobby all the time. Yet no one has shoved a few experiments down Barnes' corporate throat in spite of all the guns that have been so-called ruined by their bullets?

I can tell you this; if I owned a $60,000 {or some such value} double that was ruined by a Barnes bullet, I would make sure Barnes never forgot my name and the correct spelling of it. You all would know it, too. At any rate, they would see it often enough in black and white in front of them. The judge would read it in court. I have any number of ideas about ways to prove the point for hundreds, not thousands of dollars and certainly not tens of thousands of dollars. And with the values of guns we are dealing with, such experiments would be worth the cost and effort.

Most people stiffen a little when they are told "trust me, you don't need any evidence". And when they read, "I have lots of evidence but I don't know how to operate a digital camera", they are about finished with the topic, and frankly, I am, too.

Some people on this forum like to smear Barnes. Some even admit they have no direct experience of damage, only hearsay. If Barnes did something worth condemning and they can prove it, I'm all ears to hear it and I'll be first to join their chorus.

And yes, no matter how you cut it, it takes pressure to displace metal. Those bullets, any bullets, aren't driven up the bore with a feather.

Frankly, Peter, and this just came to me, you would possibly be a trustworthy, disinterested party to conduct some tests. I offered to kick in some dough to get that going, and the offer still stands. How about a skinny-barrel test? Such a barrel could be miked in various internal and external positions before firing and then after.

My point is this; If OSR cannot be reproduced in a lab, it doesn't exist. I happen to have a theory about how it occurs {if it does} and think I know a good way to find out if it can be reproduced, but nobody has yet directly shown that it does with Barnes bullets, at least nobody has shown it to us here. And no, you do not need a "$60,000 Double" to perform a meaningful test. PM me again and we can discuss it if you like.

BTW: I'm told the owner of Barnes owns several doubles. Guess what he shoots in them?

No...I can't prove it...