Just wondering if some of you guys can comment on this quote from an article I was reading:
I found the article here: http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/scout_102606/
It sort of makes sense to me so far as, as you go to a longer barrel you lose rigidity, and that that rigidity can be regained by going thicker on the barrel.
This sort of conflicts with the concept of heat control as the main reason for thickening the barrel. Or is it more of a complimentary sort of thing? That going thicker achieves both goals of rigidity and heat mitigation?
Many shooters don't understand the main reason long-barreled varmint rifles are fat is not to absorb heat--it's to make them stiff. Hence the increasing popularity these days of shorter, lighter "walking varmint rifles." Shooters are finally waking up to the fact that a good short, slim barrel is just as accurate as a long, fat barrel and a whole lot easier to pack around. I first realized all this in a moment of amazed delight about 25 years ago, the first time I ever fired a 15-inch box-stock Remington XP-100 pistol chambered for 7mmBR at a 200-meter target.
Three shots went 5/8 inch. My best varmint rifle was not that good with my best handloads. After a patient design engineer explained to me what was going on, I became an instant believer in short-barrel ballistics. That's probably why I went on to spend two decades as Shooting Times's Handgun Editor hunting with XP-100s, T/C Contenders and Encores, and Savage Strikers. (Long-barrel revolvers, too; same principle works there.)
I found the article here: http://www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/scout_102606/
It sort of makes sense to me so far as, as you go to a longer barrel you lose rigidity, and that that rigidity can be regained by going thicker on the barrel.
This sort of conflicts with the concept of heat control as the main reason for thickening the barrel. Or is it more of a complimentary sort of thing? That going thicker achieves both goals of rigidity and heat mitigation?