This debate does seem familiar :rolleyes:. My conclusion about the SAW vs M27 is the same as the conclusion reached at the end of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G4T7kN0t68
Printable View
This debate does seem familiar :rolleyes:. My conclusion about the SAW vs M27 is the same as the conclusion reached at the end of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G4T7kN0t68
Hey R0N if American CHF barrels only showed to be good for 10,000 rounds what kind of life are ya'll getting out of the standard button rifled M4 and M16 barrels?
That's my point.
The usual criteria for the USMC is the throat gauge, which is a highly flawed method. I've seen barrels with less than 1,000 rounds through them fail the throat gauge that still shot sub 3 MOA.
I've also seen barrels with well over 5k that failed throat gauge that maintained adequate precision.
I personally would prefer to see throat gauging get changed to a more accurate measurement technique, and to be disassociated as a pass/fail criteria and instead insert a live-fire precision requirement.
I think that the only gauges that should be a pass/fail should be barrel straightness, firing pin protrusion, and headspace.
No.
The throat measurement is a depth measurement, not an internal diameter measurement.
So, while measuring the throat wear would be a measure to attempt to reduce case throat tears, the current gauging does not take that into account.
ETA: the gauge used is very similar to this one:
http://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-to...-prod8761.aspx
EXCEPT that it measures from the rear of the upper receiver instead of at the barrel extension/bore.
There are several way that the gauging done could be more accurate.