[Bill Murphy]

Thanks for the offer to put that survey together, Austin. I'm sure it will be of interest. Frame size and marked barrel weight will be an interesting comparison when added to the mix of bore diameter and wall thickness. But. to get to my point. The safety or suitability for shooting of composite barrels is something that has not been studied and then published in our lifetimes except by Sherman Bell. We have studied this suitablility by shooting composite barrel guns without damage. We have watched others do the same. We have attended thousands of gun shows without seeing damaged composite barrels of quality that could be attributed to a general weakness of the commodity. In general, it is experience that has told us that composite barrels are generally safe, not any definitive testing in a laboratory. It is the same method used by Springfield rifle expert Michael Petrov to determine that pre serial number 800,000 1903 Springfields, generally thought to be unsafe to fire, are generally safe to fire with conservative loads. He didn't proof test or blow up a bunch of early Springfields, he just shot dozens of them for a half a century, and watched other people do the same, without damage to any of those rifles. I haven't been shooting compostite barrelled Parkers with smokeless powder for a half a century, but I have watched others doing it for that long, without damage or injury. This is the only "research" we are ever going to see, published or otherwise. After owning and collecting composite barrel Parkers and Lefevers for over fifty years, I have finally started shooting them with smokeless powder, on Sherman Bell's research. However, I do own and use bore micrometers and wall thickness gauges and recommend that others who wish to shoot these guns also procure these tools and use them.