06-20-2021, 01:46 AM
jasper2408 Wrote:Thank God that wasn't a BCA barrel! Bet the consensus would have been 180 degrees different and the advice would have been to send it back as fast as you can. That it is a piece of crap. My BCA barrel has no scratches and shoots good so how does Tikka get off so easy when they put out a substandard product.
How bad does the barrel have to be scratched before you hold the manufacturer accountable. It may shoot 1 MOA but no one on here knows how much the scratches will affect the group size compared to if there were no scratches. It might have shot a lot better than 1 MOA without those scratches but nobody can predict that. So you are telling the OP to spend his time and money to shoot the barrel in until it either shoots good or it doesn't and just accept this barrel that should have never made it past QC.
Send it back Harpoon1 and make them replace it.
Jasper,
I'm not reading anyone here advising that the OP shoot that barrel until it comes good. We just want him to shoot and see how it goes. I will add that in my experience bad barrels don't come good, they just get worse.
As for Tikka putting out sub-standard barrels, I have never known them to. Which probably explains why they get the benefit of the doubt relative to BCA. If the precision guarantee Tikka advertises is met then you cannot expect it to shoot better. You can hope but you cannot expect. You certainly have no legal or even moral redress returning a barrel that meets specs to a company for no other reason than you don't like the machine marks. They might even tell you it is a proprietary process that enhances accuracy, and maybe it is.
My point is it is no use wondering if the barrel would have shot better if those marks were not there. How about the OP shoots the barrel and then we can take it from there. Anything less than that is just arguing about cosmetics.