Barrel Torque Ludicrocity

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Show me the data that shows a difference in how the barrel shoots. between 30, 70 and 150 lbs of torque.

Also since these actions and barrels are not very elastic, what effect do you get on the threads every torque cycle?

If you cant show a compelling reason why you need to torque it more than say 50 lbs, despite what your little book of formulas says then you are wasting everyones time.

Then add in the ability to fixture it in place without damaging the action, lugs, tooling or fixturing while using insane torque values.


Some of the very best smiths in the world who have been doing this a long time, barely torque the barrel. Their barrels have won world records and championships. And yet we are supposed to listen to marginal to shitty shooters who have a rudimentary understanding of how material science applies to precision rifles.

 

[ohiofarmer]

And yet we are supposed to listen to marginal to shitty shooters who have a rudimentary understanding of how material science applies to precision rifles.

This thread is good for a laugh. Thanks. I for one can’t outshoot @MikeRTacOps but it’s nice that you can .

 

[lash]

Some of the very best smiths in the world who have been doing this a long time, barely torque the barrel. Their barrels have won world records and championships. And yet we are supposed to listen to marginal to shitty shooters who have a rudimentary understanding of how material science applies to precision rifles.

Okay, since you’re demanding proof of high torque, I’ll need proof of your claims here. Who are the “very best smiths” who barely torque the barrel who have won world records and what are those records?

I am listening as I want to learn.

 

[NateVA]

Show me the data that shows a difference in how the barrel shoots. between 30, 70 and 150 lbs of torque.

I don't think anyone ever made it about how well the barrels shoot.

If you cant show a compelling reason why you need to torque it more than say 50 lbs, despite what your little book of formulas says then you are wasting everyones time.

Some people did that in the replies to this thread. Josh at PVA talked about how he arrived at 75-100 ft/lbs torque via testing for zero shifts.

 

[MikeMiller]

Dude

Show me the data that shows a difference in how the barrel shoots. between 30, 70 and 150 lbs of torque.

Also since these actions and barrels are not very elastic, what effect do you get on the threads every torque cycle?

If you cant show a compelling reason why you need to torque it more than say 50 lbs, despite what your little book of formulas says then you are wasting everyones time.

Then add in the ability to fixture it in place without damaging the action, lugs, tooling or fixturing while using insane torque values.


Some of the very best smiths in the world who have been doing this a long time, barely torque the barrel. Their barrels have won world records and championships. And yet we are supposed to listen to marginal to shitty shooters who have a rudimentary understanding of how material science applies to precision rifles.

you really need to relax. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean you have to attack

I have been doing this a ton longer than most and have heard both arguments. All it has shown me is more than one way that do it. I prefer enough torque I don’t worry if it will unscrew or wander as it heats

This reminds me of a smith whose bedding jobs looked like crap but his machine work was so good they still punched perfect groups

What ever works for you works for you

 

[Ronin22]

I don't think anyone ever made it about how well the barrels shoot.

Some people did that in the replies to this thread. Josh at PVA talked about how he arrived at 75-100 ft/lbs torque via testing for zero shifts.

Did you miss all of @Tokay444 posts about first round shots?

 

[Ronin22]

Show me the data that shows a difference in how the barrel shoots. between 30, 70 and 150 lbs of torque.

Also since these actions and barrels are not very elastic, what effect do you get on the threads every torque cycle?

If you cant show a compelling reason why you need to torque it more than say 50 lbs, despite what your little book of formulas says then you are wasting everyones time.

Then add in the ability to fixture it in place without damaging the action, lugs, tooling or fixturing while using insane torque values.


Some of the very best smiths in the world who have been doing this a long time, barely torque the barrel. Their barrels have won world records and championships. And yet we are supposed to listen to marginal to shitty shooters who have a rudimentary understanding of how material science applies to precision rifles.

I respect your points parts 1-4, but then you make statements without any data or evidence on the last paragraph, in contradiction to your original point of wanting data. Dial down the hate knob.

 

[Tokay444]

Show me the data that shows a difference in how the barrel shoots. between 30, 70 and 150 lbs of torque.

Also since these actions and barrels are not very elastic, what effect do you get on the threads every torque cycle?

If you cant show a compelling reason why you need to torque it more than say 50 lbs, despite what your little book of formulas says then you are wasting everyones time.

Then add in the ability to fixture it in place without damaging the action, lugs, tooling or fixturing while using insane torque values.


Some of the very best smiths in the world who have been doing this a long time, barely torque the barrel. Their barrels have won world records and championships. And yet we are supposed to listen to marginal to shitty shooters who have a rudimentary understanding of how material science applies to precision rifles.

Part of the point is that 150ft/lbs isn’t insane. I have no problem at all with a SAC vice and the action wrench provided by the action manufacturer.

 

[NateVA]

Did you miss all of @Tokay444 posts about first round shots?

I (maybe wrongly) interpreted his posts as being about missing cold bore shots due to zero shifts caused by impacts to the barrel. For guns that are used more "roughly" than benchrest or exclusively range guns. Not about ONLY the cold bore shot being off due to insufficient torque and then the rest of the group being where it should.

 

[Tokay444]

https://www.americanrifle.com/web/content/30461

 

[Tokay444]

https://americanrifle.odoo.com/shop/015-10900-ra-receiver-wrench-coup-de-grace-1786

 

[Skip1943]

Here's the thing for me... I don't give a shit what anyone torques their barrels to. My ego doesn't demand that anyone believe me, or that I'm absolutely right. But I'm supremely confident that my rifles are solid, in fit, form, and function.

The gunsmith that has built my last 2 rifles, builds PRS, and believes that 100 ft-lbs makes a difference for precision shooting. I know that it's enough to keep the barrel on, but far from any mechanical limits. I also know that the dude has a lot more experience with building and shooting than I do. And I know that he has the tools and equipment to do the job. So why would I argue with a bunch of regular joes about the numbers? There's literally zero problem. It's not worth the energy.

 

[Baron23]

So, one of our more diplomatic members () does seem to properly recognize that some in this thread appear have pulled opinions seemly out of their ass.

But we also have what appears to be two mech engineers with actual analysis that seems to indicate that Ted’s 100 ft/lbs (150 max) is far within the tolerance of the material/configuration of this kind of joint and seem to indicate that it’s rather needed for elastic deformation to ensure nothing moves under the stress of firing. This is not to even mention the far greater torque Mike puts on his TacOps rifles and their reputation for first shot precision (and in work guns where first shot is prob the only shot and must be right)

I have a prefit for a CDG that I haven’t screwed on yet and plan to go 100 ft/lbs. Of course if I tear up my bench tryin to get the mofo off in the future then I might well change my mind. Lol

 

[TahoeDust]

Is there any concern of damaging the action when going 100+ ft/lb? In my circumstance it would be an Origin action with a Bugholes action wrench.

 

[Skip1943]

Is there any concern of damaging the action when going 100+ ft/lb? In my circumstance it would be an Origin action with a Bugholes action wrench.

Absolutely none, so long as everything is fixtured solidly, and nothing slips.

 

[wind gypsy]

100 ft/lb is a non-issue accomplishing on/off with a cheap PMA gen 2 vise albeit usually with some barrel marring. If i paid $100s extra for my rifles to be fashion statements i'd consider a different vise or torque value.

 

[Skip1943]

To you machinists/engineers.. What is the difference between a torque spec for a standard 5/8-11 fastener and one for a Cat 40 retention knob / pull stud? What happenes when you exceed the retention knob torque value?

I'm not sure what you're asking with this.

It's really difficult to know what happens with such a vague context. What happens is completely dependent upon what the torque value is based on. If it's based on yield strength, it will fail. If it's based on 10% of theoretical yield, it will do its job. It's impossible to know "how well" it does its job, without real world testing. That's why we have engineering and R&D labs.

Again, torque is specified for a desired clamping force, which is specific to application.

 

[JBoomhauer]

I'm not sure what you're asking with this.

It's really difficult to know what happens with such a vague context. What happens is completely dependent upon what the torque value is based on. If it's based on yield strength, it will fail. If it's based on 10% of theoretical yield, it will do its job. It's impossible to know "how well" it does its job, without real world testing. That's why we have engineering and R&D labs.

Again, torque is specified for a desired clamping force, which is specific to application.

When you apply too much torque it will bulge the taper and ruin the toolholder.

That torque might be perfectly fine for a fastener in another application, but doesn’t work in the he case of a toolholder and retention knob.

Messing up the taper was being done by machinists with hand tools.

 

[Kiba]

To you machinists/engineers.. What is the difference between a torque spec for a standard 5/8-11 fastener and one for a Cat 40 retention knob / pull stud? What happenes when you exceed the retention knob torque value?

I'm not sure what you're asking with this.

It's really difficult to know what happens with such a vague context. What happens is completely dependent upon what the torque value is based on. If it's based on yield strength, it will fail. If it's based on 10% of theoretical yield, it will do its job. It's impossible to know "how well" it does its job, without real world testing. That's why we have engineering and R&D labs.

Again, torque is specified for a desired clamping force, which is specific to application.

Specifically, he's talking about the tendency of the taper on the tool holder to distort and cause excess runout in the holder and tool if you overtighten the retention knob. If you tighten them too much you've permanently distorted the taper and the holder is now a paperweight.

For cat 40 holders I've seen recommendations from finger tight only plus a bit of blue loctite, to 35-75 ft-lb on the instructions included with the holder depending on the manufacturer of the tool holder and retention knob, but none of them even get close to the 110ish ft-lb recommended for a lubricated grade 5 5/8 11 bolt. That's what he's talking about.

It's a very application specific issue, but again, it shows the value of testing to arrive at the correct preload and torque value for the specific application.

 

[Skip1943]

When you apply too much torque it will bulge the taper and ruin the toolholder.

That torque might be perfectly fine for a fastener in another application, but doesn’t work in the he case of a toolholder and retention knob.

Messing up the taper was being done by machinists with hand tools.

OK. But I'm not understanding what it has to do with the topic at hand. It's like asking what happens if you hit a rivet with a sledgehammer vs hitting a watermelon with the same sledgehammer.

 

[Skip1943]

Specifically, he's talking about the tendency of the taper on the tool holder to distort and cause excess runout in the holder and tool if you overtighten the retention knob. If you tighten them too much you've permanently distorted the taper and the holder is now a paperweight.

For cat 40 holders I've seen recommendations from finger tight only plus a bit of blue loctite, to 35-75 ft-lb on the instructions included with the holder depending on the manufacturer of the tool holder and retention knob, but none of them even get close to the 110ish ft-lb recommended for a lubricated grade 5 5/8 11 bolt. That's what he's talking about.

It's a very application specific issue, but again, it shows the value of testing to arrive at the correct preload and torque value for the specific application.

When I said "I don't understand", what I specifically meant, is that I fail to make any logical connection to the topic at hand, as you rightly noted in your last paragraph. To be fair, it's possible that some people just don't understand that there isn't a single torque number, without regard to application or objectives. Physics isn't for everyone.

 

[MikeMiller]

So does anyone here that is a true engineer have a reliable way to check all this information

We have shooters and rifle builders with beliefs but what is the science?

 

[Baron23]

So does anyone here that is a true engineer have a reliable way to check all this information

We have shooters and rifle builders with beliefs but what is the science?

Ah Mike....don't you think we had at least two actual engineers run thru some simplied analysis and conclude that 100 ft/lbs is minuscule compared to the material/configuration tolerance of the joint and is actually needed to get that elastic deformation (which I'm guessing is being referred to as pre-load).

If you are asking for test data on torque vs precision (or torque vs robustness in case of impact on the barrel)...I can see where that would be very time consuming and complex to eliminate all other factors from influencing test results other than barrel torque.

 

[Skip1943]

So does anyone here that is a true engineer have a reliable way to check all this information

We have shooters and rifle builders with beliefs but what is the science?

I think I'm a true engineer. My bachelor's is in mathematics, my master's is in systems engineering. I've been working almost 30 years in various engineering and R&D disciplines.

Get yourself a Machinery Handbook. All of the calculations for threads and material strength are explained there. The only thing you need to know after that, are the specific parameters of the materials that you're working with. The calculations are simple. Even estimations, without specific use cases, are sufficient to arrive at a basic understanding.

We won't get a 100% conclusive answer (regarding full effects of torque vs accuracy - or whatever) without someone's empirical data, but you'll get enough of data to see that the physical properties of the material are near the bottom of the limit, and don't put the system in any sort of danger.

Beyond that, we're operating in anecdotal territory, and really shouldn't be dying on any hills. That's the domain of those who have actually put in the work. Don't defend ideas that you can't prove.

 

[MikeMiller]

Ah Mike....don't you think we had at least two actual engineers run thru some simplied analysis and conclude that 100 ft/lbs is minuscule compared to the material/configuration of the joint and is actually needed to get that elastic deformation (which I'm guessing is being referred to as pre-load).

If you are asking for test data on torque vs precision (or torque vs robustness in case of impact on the barrel)...I can see where that would be very time consuming and complex to eliminate all other factors from influencing test results other than barrel torque.

Well that’s my take as well but I was hoping for someone who
Knows for certain explained it. Lol

 

[powdahound76]

Is there any concern of damaging the action when going 100+ ft/lb? In my circumstance it would be an Origin action with a Bugholes action wrench.

I have the Zermatt action wrench and it says 75 ft/lbs for non magnum and 100 ft/lbs for magnum rounds.

 

[MikeMiller]

I think I'm a true engineer. My bachelor's is in mathematics, my master's is in systems engineering. I've been working almost 30 years in various engineering and R&D disciplines.

Get yourself a Machinery Handbook. All of the calculations for threads and material strength are explained there. The only thing you need to know after that, are the specific parameters of the materials that you're working with. The calculations are simple. Even estimations, without specific use cases, are sufficient to arrive at a basic understanding.

We won't get a 100% conclusive answer (regarding full effects of torque vs accuracy - or whatever) without someone's empirical data, but you'll get enough of data to see that the physical properties of the material are near the bottom of the limit, and don't put the system in any sort of danger.

Beyond that, we're operating in anecdotal territory, and really shouldn't be dying on any hills. That's the domain of those who have actually put in the work. Don't defend ideas that you can't prove.

Sir I can’t defend any of the listed torque value with anything 100 percent so we agree. Have had smiths use both extremes. Hand tight and several Hundred pounds. The hand tight cost me in huge match when it came loose under many rds. The several hundreds worked flawlessly for years.

I am hoping someone will do tests to so I could read real world data

No dog in this fight

 

[Skip1943]

Sir I can’t defend any of the listed torque value with anything 100 percent so we agree. Have had smiths use both extremes. Hand tight and several Hundred pounds. The hand tight cost me in huge match when it came loose under many rds. The several hundreds worked flawlessly for years.

I am hoping someone will do tests to so I could read real world data

No dog in this fight

Fair enough. I appreciate the humility.

 

[bohem]

I have the Zermatt action wrench and it says 75 ft/lbs for non magnum and 100 ft/lbs for magnum rounds.

I covered that probably on the first, maybe 2nd page.

Several of the references in the industry come from data that I gathered and provided to several action makers when I was asked my opinion on the topic.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

So does anyone here that is a true engineer have a reliable way to check all this information

We have shooters and rifle builders with beliefs but what is the science?

Whatever they will come up with is almost guaranteed to be bullshit.

You can't compare fastner tq values to that of a precision rifle tube. Vastly different applications that don't factor in a precision rifle tube machined down to .0001 tolerances that has to shoot a projectile.

We already know things like how 5/8 of threading has a tendency to open the bore up vs 3/4 threading.

Engineering background unless it's in this specific area of study which is so small and niche the chance of getting someone is almost non existent.

So you need to be results oriented not process. What do the results show. We know very prominent smiths and world champions use light tq values with overwhelming success. I have seen the same thing in informal testing. Tq values are either a non factor or just not measurable when it comes to results.

In fact, I would trust an engineers opinion of the subject less than an experienced smith due to them overestimating their understanding and not taking all variables and applications into account

 

[Baron23]

 

[Kiba]

So when a gunsmith uses low torque values and gets good results we'll accept that data, but when another gunsmith like Mike at Tac Ops uses very high torque values and also gets exceptional results we'll ignore that particular dataset... Got it.

I guess I've been interpreting and applying the scientific method wrong all these years!

(The actual real scientific method is you always find positive results for whomever is funding the research regardless of what the data says, but I think we all knew that.)

 

[roostercogburn98]

I just want to get this barrel put on already

 

[lash]

We know very prominent smiths and world champions use light tq values with overwhelming success.

Hahaha! Here you go using the same made up feel good statement as last time while bitching about things you don’t know squat about.

Seems right…

 

[flogxal]

@Skip1943 -- this discussion about torque sufficiency for the job would be good for picking apart people's fears on pistol slide RDS attachments. A lot of flying RDS stories. Poor screws? Poor threads? Poor job doing the attachment/torque? Failure to use a thread-lock on the screw threads? Failure to clean the screws before applying thread-lock?

Seems more useful than worrying over 50ft/lbs vs 100ft/lbs on barrel nut torque. After all, anyone worried their 50 is not up to the task, they can always snug it more. The problem is probably in trusting a home mechanic to fixture everything properly to achieve the higher torque settings, even if they have a long enough lever arm to get there.

My Seekins Havak Hit has a hand-snugged thread-in, with a jam wedge that gets torqued at a fairly light setting. I haven't had it walk out on me, and I've swapped barrles 2x.

 

[MikeMiller]

Whatever they will come up with is almost guaranteed to be bullshit.

You can't compare fastner tq values to that of a precision rifle tube. Vastly different applications that don't factor in a precision rifle tube machined down to .0001 tolerances that has to shoot a projectile.

We already know things like how 5/8 of threading has a tendency to open the bore up vs 3/4 threading.

Engineering background unless it's in this specific area of study which is so small and niche the chance of getting someone is almost non existent.

So you need to be results oriented not process. What do the results show. We know very prominent smiths and world champions use light tq values with overwhelming success. I have seen the same thing in informal testing. Tq values are either a non factor or just not measurable when it comes to results.

In fact, I would trust an engineers opinion of the subject less than an experienced smith due to them overestimating their understanding and not taking all variables and applications into account

Dude, I held the F TR record at 800 yards for World Championships. I was member of two US National World Championship winning teams. I won dozens of National and World Championships medals and I already said I have seen both extreme torque and hand torque from smiths that built those rifles so that idea wont work for proving a point on this

That’s why I asked if anyone had done a real study or science to prove either.

 

[Ronin22]

Dude, I held the F TR record at 800 yards for World Championships. I was member of two US National World Championship winning teams. I won dozens of National and World Championships medals and I already said I have seen both extreme torque and hand torque from smiths that built those rifles so that idea wont work for proving a point on this

That’s why I asked if anyone had done a real study or science to prove either.

Remind me which camp you’re in.
1. Apply peanut butter and let dog lick it tight.
2. 800ftlbs

 

[supercorndogs]

SAE

When I was in college one of the other guys asked me how to convert ftlbs into NM. I missed the opportunity to have him figuring it out long hand, and told him. Use the Newton Meter scale on your wrench instead of the ftlb scale.

 

[JBoomhauer]

When I was in college one of the other guys asked me how to convert ftlbs into NM. I missed the opportunity to have him figuring it out long hand, and told him. Use the Newton Meter scale on your wrench instead of the ftlb scale.

I have had a few similar co-workers converting from inch to metric when documenting the quality paperwork. They were pretty annoyed when I pressed the in/mm button and documented the numbers on the readout without converting.

 

[MikeMiller]

Remind me which camp you’re in.
1. Apply peanut butter and let dog lick it tight.
2. 800ftlbs

Best I can say is I have had better results with more torque. Hand tight has bit me in the ass. I do believe the answer is probably somewhere in the middle

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

So when a gunsmith uses low torque values and gets good results we'll accept that data, but when another gunsmith like Mike at Tac Ops uses very high torque values and also gets exceptional results we'll ignore that particular dataset... Got it.

I guess I've been interpreting and applying the scientific method wrong all these years!

(The actual real scientific method is you always find positive results for whomever is funding the research regardless of what the data says, but I think we all knew that.)

So we see the same results, Ergo excessive torque is unnecessary and just makes installing and uninstalling a pain in the ass. its not a hard concept to understand. No one said torquing the shit out of it would result in poor or lessor performance.

It doesn't matter. So why make it more difficult than it needs to be?

You can tell there are engineers in here, autism meter is going bonkers.

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Dude, I held the F TR record at 800 yards for World Championships. I was member of two US National World Championship winning teams. I won dozens of National and World Championships medals and I already said I have seen both extreme torque and hand torque from smiths that built those rifles so that idea wont work for proving a point on this

That’s why I asked if anyone had done a real study or science to prove either.

No one outside of an institution with unlimited pockets would commission such a study and if they did, would most likely be FOUO.

Real science is 100 years of results on the firing line. Its either non existent or so minuscule its lost in the noise.

If there was validity to it, everyone would be TQ the shit out of their barrels because if they didn't the results would be poor.

You just said you have seen it both ways on championship teams. How can you not draw the same concussion that IT DOES NOT MATTER?

 

[MikeMiller]

No one outside of an institution with unlimited pockets would commission such a study and if they did, would most likely be FOUO.

Real science is 100 years of results on the firing line. Its either non existent or so minuscule its lost in the noise.

If there was validity to it, everyone would be TQ the shit out of their barrels because if they didn't the results would be poor.

You just said you have seen it both ways on championship teams. How can you not draw the same concussion that IT DOES NOT MATTER?

Well I think it depends on intended use. Bench Rest may get away with hand tight but field equipment won’t

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Why is that?

I have seen hand tightened barrels come loose at matches but I would never recommend it. You aren't shooting or shaking loose 30 ft lbs no matter what you do. Headspace does not change .0005 between 30 and 150. I know because Ive measured. So explain it me why more torque is better.

The results downrange are the same. Shooters cant measure the difference. Brass comes out the same.

But you need "scientific" study to tell you what to do. And your assumption that high TQ values has as much validity as mine, except I have actually tested it over the years and see zero difference in results.

 

[Skip1943]

Whatever they will come up with is almost guaranteed to be bullshit.

You can't compare fastner tq values to that of a precision rifle tube. Vastly different applications that don't factor in a precision rifle tube machined down to .0001 tolerances that has to shoot a projectile.

We already know things like how 5/8 of threading has a tendency to open the bore up vs 3/4 threading.

Engineering background unless it's in this specific area of study which is so small and niche the chance of getting someone is almost non existent.

So you need to be results oriented not process. What do the results show. We know very prominent smiths and world champions use light tq values with overwhelming success. I have seen the same thing in informal testing. Tq values are either a non factor or just not measurable when it comes to results.

In fact, I would trust an engineers opinion of the subject less than an experienced smith due to them overestimating their understanding and not taking all variables and applications into account

Hello, full of shit autist engineer, over here. Nice to make your acquaintance.

You know, I really used to believe that the people who were the real problem solvers, were a good team of engineers (to analyze and troubleshoot data) and technicians (to do the rigorous testing). However, I'm beginning to see the error of my thinking. You've single-handedly convinced me that the people who actually innovate and gatekeep all technical knowledge, are internet forum patrons. The louder and more passionate they are, the more value their statements carry. So you will forgive me, in advance, if anything that I say disagrees with you.

Any good engineer is going to tell you exactly the same thing that you've already heard in this thread. Specifically, that specified torque values are application specific, and outside of acceptable minimum values, lots of testing and data is required to understand the value of additional torque. And at least one engineer has told you to only believe what's provable.

For what it's worth, I used to have a shop. I specialized in hunter benchrest and varmint rifles. I'm not conceited enough to believe that I know everything. And yet, I know that a long time ago,I knew more than most. But times change, and knowledge advances. We'd do well to listen to the people whose results consistently speak for themselves. Once you can emulate someone else's success, then you can try to push the envelope a bit further. Until then, you're a student, not a teacher. Respectfully...

 

[MikeMiller]

Why is that?

I have seen hand tightened barrels come loose at matches but I would never recommend it. You aren't shooting or shaking loose 30 ft lbs no matter what you do. Headspace does not change .0005 between 30 and 150. I know because Ive measured. So explain it me why more torque is better.

The results downrange are the same. Shooters cant measure the difference. Brass comes out the same.

But you need "scientific" study to tell you what to do. And your assumption that high TQ values has as much validity as mine, except I have actually tested it over the years and see zero difference in results.

I don’t need a scientific study to tell me what to use. I know what has worked for me very successfully

That does not mean I am not open to learning from people who do real testing and engineering for a living.

The older I get the less I depend on seat of the pants only testing

 

[Skip1943]

@Skip1943 -- this discussion about torque sufficiency for the job would be good for picking apart people's fears on pistol slide RDS attachments. A lot of flying RDS stories. Poor screws? Poor threads? Poor job doing the attachment/torque? Failure to use a thread-lock on the screw threads? Failure to clean the screws before applying thread-lock?

Seems more useful than worrying over 50ft/lbs vs 100ft/lbs on barrel nut torque. After all, anyone worried their 50 is not up to the task, they can always snug it more. The problem is probably in trusting a home mechanic to fixture everything properly to achieve the higher torque settings, even if they have a long enough lever arm to get there.

My Seekins Havak Hit has a hand-snugged thread-in, with a jam wedge that gets torqued at a fairly light setting. I haven't had it walk out on me, and I've swapped barrles 2x.

I am a firm believer that often, multiple things can be true of the same subject. I believe that some guns were built to operate at higher barrel torque, and others, lower (while others may see no change in either case). Ultimately, if the design proves itself, I consider that the engineers/armorers have done their job.

I'd encourage everyone to show faith where it's warranted, while remaining curious. Not all ideas bear fruit, but you don't get answers to questions that you haven't asked. Conversely, if it doesn't matter to you, defer to the experts. If someone says they'll deliver you a 1/8 MOA rifle, and they do it, then no line item nit picking is warranted.

 

[Ronin22]

Well I think we’re at the point of chili is with or without beans.

 

[Nik H]

Well I think we’re at the point of chili is with or without beans.

WITHOUT

 

[Ronin22]

WITHOUT

Wrong