Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
I have noticed that many older shotguns that the barrels look almost paper thin in comparison to the muzzles of new models. Also, vintage revolvers had much slimmer barrels. Ever notice how thin the barrel of a 1911 is? Now we all know that with handguns a thick heavy barrel that puts more weight up front helps control recoil, and that thick stiff barrels on rifles vibrate less and are more accurate. But how thick do they really need to be in order to be safe? I chanced to handle a lightweight Taurus revolver over the week end and noticed that the barrel actually had a stainless steel liner. The forcing cone, that is the little stub of barrel that extends inside the frame about
1/8th of an inch with walls no thicker than a piece of copper water line. In fact, the cylinder walls on most revolvers like the S&W
.44 Magnum are surprisingly thin. You would think that if something were to fail under pressure, these parts would be like the weak link in a chain. This leads me to believe that with modern metallurgy that barrels could be made shockingly thin and still be perfectly safe, if not as accurate.
Just an observation, OS
1/8th of an inch with walls no thicker than a piece of copper water line. In fact, the cylinder walls on most revolvers like the S&W
.44 Magnum are surprisingly thin. You would think that if something were to fail under pressure, these parts would be like the weak link in a chain. This leads me to believe that with modern metallurgy that barrels could be made shockingly thin and still be perfectly safe, if not as accurate.
Just an observation, OS