I'd like to see it gel tested before I make any purchase.
I don't think it will be too much of an issue, especially with the chrome lined barrels.J.Boyette said:The only issue I see with any 3,000 fps load of any caliber is, its a barrel burner.
Thats my only issue.
Yes I know barrels are the most expendable part of a rifle, but I like to keep things under 2,950 for my own personal firearms.
Its just my little quirk I have I guess.
John
Sir,J.Boyette said:The only issue I see with any 3,000 fps load of any caliber is, its a barrel burner.
Thats my only issue.
Yes I know barrels are the most expendable part of a rifle, but I like to keep things under 2,950 for my own personal firearms.
Its just my little quirk I have I guess.
John
As he wrote before:billclo said:Sir,J.Boyette said:The only issue I see with any 3,000 fps load of any caliber is, its a barrel burner.
Thats my only issue.
Yes I know barrels are the most expendable part of a rifle, but I like to keep things under 2,950 for my own personal firearms.
Its just my little quirk I have I guess.
John
Do you shoot 5.56 military ball or even the watered down civilian version? If so, you're shooting ammo that shoots over 3000fps (M193 spec is 3200 fps +/- 50 fps, M855 is 3050 fps +/- 50 fps. I haven't heard any complaints about short barrel life in even a non-chromed 5.56 barrel, let alone a chromed one. Even the commercial 223 loads normally are faster than 3000fps.
What are you basing your opinion on to use such a hard and fast rule?![]()
J.Boyette said:Paulo,
You very well could be right.
Like I posted, its my little issue with any caliber thats all.
John
Hey Artkalwasart said:There is less bullet to bore contact with the barnes because of the bands therefore less friction = less heat compared to a fully jacketed projectile. Also barnes uses a nearly pure copper alloy in their bullets = softer compared it to a 95-5 or 90-10 jacket.
Art