Re: HERE..get one of these,it'll make you shoot be
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, OK. I can't vouch for the product currently being roasted, and the idea of a forward discharging muzzle brake sounds awfully fishy to me.
But the idea of a sleeved, or better yet, sleeved and tensioned barrel is nether new to the accuracy game, nor ludicrous in the least. The link I cite above is testimony to the fact that the concept is serious and the product is available and although rather pricey (my research says around $700), does as advertized (by L-W, anyway).
BR shooters have been using sleeved, tensioned handmade barrels on rail guns and shooting truly ittybitty groups with them. In such guise they are massive and not readily portable. The L-W product goes a long way toward making it far more practical, and in fact hits that mark rather well, IMHO.
This version sounds 'interesting' but IMHO, it's not especially revolutionary, and I think their marketing guru really could do a better job of showcasing the advantages of their product.
As for their brake feature, I simply don't know what to say.
Naysayers, I suggest a more open mind.
Greg</div></div>
I'm glad I didn't say it first, but I was thinking it, despite their heinous advertising ploy. I figure that pretty obviously a heat sink is a heat sink. The only question is whether their design is a good heat sink. It would seem silly to sell a heat sink that didn't really dissipate heat, so I'll give them a pass on effectiveness there. Now, is heat a factor in shooting? Not to my rudimentary skillset, but maybe to someone else.
In terms of better accuracy being claimed as 70%, maybe what they should be marketing is something completely different like accuracy after burning 400 rnds quick like. Given what I've seen in some vids of M4's being melted down on purpose with different barrels, having the super-bestest-non-melting-can-still-hit-a-barn barrel has an untapped demographic?
My problem is with them is their marketing claims. I don't think you can claim a 70% increase in accuracy unless you are comparing ammunition to ammunition and put it in terms of "rejects found by first firing." Guns are too damn accurate, and ammo too little, to test different barrels with and come up with 70%. First, it would have to be indoors, and I am not seeing too many 300yd indoor ranges. The groups people can pull at 50 or 100 are too tight to be decreased by 70%. One sightly different projectile would overrule the variance. Now if someone like me performs the test and comes up with 70% better groupings, it would probably just be what I had for lunch not a magic barrel sleave. OTOH, if they shot a group, tore through 500 rnds and then fired a second group to measure the decline in performance, then I can see a meaningful 70% less decline from cold performance. Implying groups shrinking by 70% is just silly-talk.