stibuzz Wrote:It has a 1x9 twist rate and is a .264lbc which is the same as the 6.5 grendel with some throat angle differences and not the pricey trademarked Grendel name through AA but shoots the same ammo.
Don't get the "pricey trademarked Grendel" comment, as the cheapest BHW barrel is $265 and does not appear to include the bolt (another $75?).
The AA starting point is $260 with bolt.
Not saying the AA is better, it's probably a Shaw SS barrel, known quantity. And the BHW would be 3 land poly, not sure if that is clearly better or not.
But the idea that trademarked barrels are more expensive is not born out when you actually go try to buy one.
There is apparently a AA royalty that impacts pricing, but based on comparing 6.8 SPC to Grendel for the same mfgs, it's around $50-75 for barrels just based on comparing retail prices. So why aren't non-licensed barrels cheaper?? Looks to me like they are pocketing any money they would have paid for royalty.
In fact, I've not found a CSS or 264LBC barrel that was less expensive than an equivalent Grendel barrel. You can argue quality, many things. But based on my experience, you won't save money going non-licensed. Hopefully there are exceptions out there where the savings on not paying the license is passed on to the shooter, but I've not seen them.
And there is more than one dimension to quality.... if you look at just postings here and in the old forum, you'll find most of the folks dealing with oddball functionality issues (chamber, bolts, etc) are on non-licensed rifles/barrels. Not all, but most, certainly over the last 12 months that's been the case.
Not defending AA as much as just wondering where the savings went for choosing not to license?