Re: ideal rifle weight
I need to pay more attention to my meds, actually. Sometimes I get the bit in my teeth and there's no tellin' where I'll finally come back down to earth. Could be that some of my rant is based on a case of the shivers after seeing LL's Duracote video. Very convincing, BTW; incredibly so.
Old School Marine, doing things like that to an issue weapon just raises hackles. My issue, nobody else's. I come from the school about politicians and rust, all other hazards being the user's fault for not taking adequate care, etc..
Like velocity, overengineering seems to me to be a shortcut or an excuse not to treat the matter at hand with adequate care.
If my weapon needs that kind of rudgidness, I'm doing it wrong. If I'm firing enough rounds that barrel heat is severely impeding accuracy, I'm doing it wrong. If rifle performance is surprising me under actual operating conditions, I'm doing it wrong. I could go on, but I think the point's already made.
Heavy barrels are heat sinks. They heat up slow (on the outside), and cool off slow. There is nothing in their composition that protects a bore or a throat from heat damage any better than a lightweight barrel does. Maybe even, they preserve internal heat longer, exposing the inner tract to vulnerability longer. The outer region does resist flex and warpage, but there are better ways to do that which don't impose a cooling off penalty that can take the rifle out of service for way, way too long.
Pricey, but much better;
this is a solution which saves the weight and balance, and keeps the rifle in the fight, maybe even indefinitely. I'd like to say it was my idea, but L-W beat me to it by at least six decades.
Those of you who follow my posts have seen this link many times before. It continues to be a great idea that simply reinforces my theories. I remain amazed that I have not seen anyone here praising its capabilities. Like the Accue-Stock, it's a revolution, not an evolution.
Greg
