This debate does seem familiar. 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
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This debate does seem familiar. 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
Last edited by sinlessorrow; 03-18-13 at 08:30.
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.
Last edited by sinlessorrow; 03-18-13 at 10:15.
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.
Bookmarks