08-18-2020, 05:43 PM
Aggravating I know.
I'm glad (now for another reason!) I sent the proof back, it was only a 16" anyway.
About the "high-speed", makes some sense, they meant high-speed steel (vice carbide), only the first few chambers would've been ok and then the chamber depth would start to shorten up as the steel wore down...
My opinion, the 105 is not so much diameter being higher, rather the ogive profile might be "stubbier" than spec...
Everyone wants to blame the bullet/cartridge when other barrels seem to be doing fine, yet the problem children all seem to have the same last names... odin, now proof.
I would venture to say that Proof may have cut their chambers "shallow" to give the DoD guys a little more "lands-chasing" room plus they are shooting a longer ogive bullet anyway.
Come to think of it, with all the DoD testing Proof was involved in for ~2 years, don't think it makes sense to say that Hornady sent the wrong reamers.
I'm glad (now for another reason!) I sent the proof back, it was only a 16" anyway.
About the "high-speed", makes some sense, they meant high-speed steel (vice carbide), only the first few chambers would've been ok and then the chamber depth would start to shorten up as the steel wore down...
My opinion, the 105 is not so much diameter being higher, rather the ogive profile might be "stubbier" than spec...
Everyone wants to blame the bullet/cartridge when other barrels seem to be doing fine, yet the problem children all seem to have the same last names... odin, now proof.
I would venture to say that Proof may have cut their chambers "shallow" to give the DoD guys a little more "lands-chasing" room plus they are shooting a longer ogive bullet anyway.
Come to think of it, with all the DoD testing Proof was involved in for ~2 years, don't think it makes sense to say that Hornady sent the wrong reamers.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"