Retraction and apology to Barnard rifles

P

prairieguy

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
177   0   0
Location
Alberta
I would like to acknowledge to one and all that my original posting was offensive, without justification and in remarkably poor judgement.

I apologise to Barnard Rifles and sincerely hope that I have not caused any harm to their reputation nor that of the Canadian importer, Robertson Composites.

Les Dolhun
 
Last edited:
Just get another Barnard Rail and make it fit your other gun and sell the base on your second gun PM me I have a new Barnard rail
manitou
 
Les, I had the same problem with a Farrel rail. Ken swore up and down that it was to 1913 spec, but the slots were too tight for pic cross bolts, and way sloppy for Weaver. I ended up having a machinist friend open the slots up a tad, and now they fit great. No big deal at all to open up the slots a bit. It's very worthwhile to have interchangable mounting systems on optics- #### happens, especially when you aren't ready to adapt and overcome.
 
Perhaps they meant "Picatinny inspired?"

Can understand the frustration.

However, it must mean that you have your rifle. And if you have your rifle, that's one less to get done now before mine gets done too!

Perhaps then too, I maybe frustrated by my scope mounting endeavors.
 
got it Les- I was thinking the problem was the dimension of the slots themselves, rather than the spacing of the slots. I'd be cheesed too.

I got a nice pic spec rail for my Musgrave from Paul Rieben. He has them machined locally. I'm not sure about the radius of the Barnard action. Might be the same as the other actions like Musgrave, RPA, etc, or he might be able to get a one off made. Either way, I think I'd be sending the Barnard "item" back.
 
Milspec M1913 picatinny rail is exactly that and there are drawings for it. If the Barnard rail is advertised as such check the dimensions with the spec., if they're out send it back for a new one or refund. There's no reason you should have to deal with a manufacturing error or misleading/false advertising.
 
Last edited:
I just measured a couple of Barnard rails that I have at home. Measured over 10 spaces they are within a couple of ten thou of the spec of .394" and the grooves measure right on at .206". Interesting to note that .394" is almost exactly 10.00mm, pretty good for 1913 and metriphob Americans way back then. Perhaps the rail that you assume is "milspec" is actually not and the Barnard rail is? They can measure in NZ you know. Please feel free to send it back to me and if it does not measure up I will contact Barnard about the situation. Based on your initial comment I am biting my tongue very firmly.

Thanks,

Ian, the Barnard importer.
 
Here are the measurements off my rail:

Grooves: .200 +/- .001
Rails: .194 to .197

The grooves are too narrow and the raised sections too wide (and inconsistent).

According to spec, if the grooves are supposed to be .206 and centre to centre of a section is .394 then the raised rail sections should be .188

Nice of you to assume that I don't know what I'm talking about Ian. The other rail is to spec.
 
Like I said, send it back and if there is a problem I will replace it. I don't assume anything but I do want to see the problem for myself. As a matter of fact Barnard calls it a "Picatinny Style Rail" on their web site, they don't claim anything else. Why would you start a thread with "F*cking Barnard.", before you even talk to me or Barnard about it?
 
If it's "picatinny style" and not picatinny spec. then they shouldn't be advertised as such, it's just being cute, and really given the plethora of picatinny stuff available why would you want to add confusion to the market place and customers, nothing good can come of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom