Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Riddell
So in 2019 in my infinite wisdom had the left choke opened and decided to get formal documentation on the barrels and to my dismay, although in acceptable range for safe barrel thickness they couldn’t give me any documentation on the safety of the barrels due to the lengthening of the forcing cones one at 7” and the other cone at 10”, and the tubes not at the nominal .729 left barrel at .736 and the right at .742 but in email correspondence I was told they were safe just no formal documentation due to the stated fact above. Now could I speculate that these “issues” could have been done at the factory when the gun was sent it for the documented work? Would Brad be able to determine these things were done through experience and the barrels would be acceptable or are there different ways of checking barrels for safety, loaded question I know. Any thoughts or speculation?
|
What ' "issues" '?
It is not uncommon, at all, to find older guns with untouched barrels measuring well above .729" I had a custome'rs gun here which measured .751".
"couldn’t give me any documentation on the safety of the barrels due to the lengthening of the forcing cones one at 7” and the other cone at 10”
This does not make sense to me. what was at 7" and 10".
I think bore diameter is a number which people put way to much importance on. It's BARREL WALL THICKNESS that is what I'm after. Only thing I use my Chubbs for is determining chokes.
Bill Murphy's statement, however you interpreted it, is correct. I don't see where he was making any other statement but what it says.
There has been a lot of past posting, indicating that Brad didn't own a wall thickness gauge. Whatever else people think of the shop today, or compared to 'before', I understand now they do own a wall thickness gauge.
I had a hell of a time trying to figure out what you were saying. Maybe I still don't know.