Factory replacement barrel

[375Short]

It’s winter, new posts are scarce.

3.1.3 b - Barrels must be original or may be relined. Original barrels rebored to a larger caliber are allowed.

The topic has been bantered around and the consensus of interpretation seems to be “no after market replacement barrels”. The verbiage we seem to use is “you can’t replace a barrel”. Which is correct?

An area that doesn’t seem addressed is a “original” manufacturers barrel.
The rules allow for new parts or these older guns would become extinct. A factory barrel is merely a part, selected from a bin, same as other parts as the rifle is assembled. Like other parts is is subject to becoming worn out or unserviceable. I believe replacement of this specific part with another “Original” part is allowed.

The rule clearly makes allowances to repair a barrel by relining or Reboring. By relining you have an expensive new barrel inside your old one. By Reboring you have a new surface inside the old one. I believe it’s just poor wording and overzealous interpretation that is precluding barrel replacement with a factory “Original” barrel. There are not a lot of factory original barrels out there but there are some and it is an avenue to keep rifles in service.

[Merlin]

OK... I'll start it. No you should not be allowed as it will create an equipment race and end up pricing a lot of competitors out of the sport.

[DAVIDMAGNUM]

One exception would have to be factory replaced barrel under warranty.
Otherwise there are quite a few Henry Long Barrel Frontier rifles that are being "illegally" used .

[edgehit]

The rule needs to change to where a replacement using factory original contour is allowed.

There are calibers and barrel contours that aren’t safely relined which isn’t good for the competitors.

An equipment race is already in play so that argument has a fallacy. I’ve seen a stainless Marlin 336 with a blue barrel at nationals. Replaced Henry barrels. Expertly made Winchester barrels are easily swapped. People swap stocks and finger levers to have a pistol grip. The sights can be precision tang with verniers and front sight can look like it belongs on a laser gun.

I personally was interested in buying a 120 year old 1894 custom order rifle that needed a barrel to safely shoot. But I ditched that itch when no gunsmith would reline the 30-30 barrel. However all of them offered a replacement that included roll stamps and exact contour for $800.

And those with deep pockets buy rifles until they find “the Hummer”

Today’s CLA game is about the love of lever guns, shooting in the wind with crappy BC bullets, and using open sights.

[375Short]

When it comes to not allowing for barrel replacement, Some things to ask ourselves. Why? What is accomplished or what are we trying to accomplish?

I think we want the rifle to appear as an original or replica of an original. We don’t want a replacement to allow an unfair advantage. We probably do not allow rebarreling with an option that isn’t representative of a cataloged original. If stainless steel, it can only go on factory actions made of stainless steel.

I interpret the current rule to allow for that. It’s poorly written and ambiguous but so are many other areas within the rule book. I can’t imagine the intent was you can replace every other part on the rifle, but not the barrel. The only way to have a new barrel is attached to a new rifle. That doesn’t make sense and is the most costly to the competitors of all other options. It seems far more reasonable and in line with good ol’ American freedom and independence to allow for the replacement of a barrel with a factory original or replica of a factory original specific to that model of rifle or its commercially manufactured replica.

Example: Winchester and Marlin have changed ownership several times and copies made by other manufacturers. “Original” can get very ambiguous and eventually nonexistent. I think by any reasonable standard we must allow for rifles that need new parts including the part known as a barrel to be replaced. It’s reasonable, rational and fair to dictate that replacement very closely matches the originals.

Maybe I have it all wrong and the intention of the rule and the desire of the competitors is simply “No” barrel will be replaced. Except maybe at the factory with a factory barrel if they exist.

That thought would be a 30 second conversation. Took me an hour to write and probably full of my typical typos, grammar and spelling issues. Oh well, my English teachers have probably all passed on by now.

Just as I was posting this Joe made about the same points but more clearly than I probably did.

[TheBugFather]

I like this discussion

Dennis Ostler

[cedestech]

The rules were written when lever guns were cheap.

Anyone who is competitive is constantly cycling though guns to find one that shoots a little better then the one they have. This is WAY more expensive than rebarreling your rifle when it quits shooting.

Anyone who has priced a rebarrel job on a lever gun already knows it isn't even kinda cheap.

It would create a equipment race.

People will get very upset when they find their scores don't drastically improve.

Once you find a reasonable rifle/load, 2MOA is more then acceptable for this game. 3 if your not super serious about it. The animals are so big that a 1 MOA rifle will not improve your scores drastically if you can not see your sights, the animals or your hold (form) is that far off it is far cheaper to address those.

I'm for it. I have several rifles that I have bought/wore out that I can't sell because I won't sell a gun that doesn't shoot and my guns aren't pristine because they are tools which precludes them from collecting.

YMMV, IMHO, this has been hashed out before...

[cedestech]

And as far as "factory original"... look though old Winchester catalogs.

To be blunt, they were essentially prostitutes. If you'd pay for it, they would build it.

So any combination you can fathom of action/profile/length and chambering plus wood style and grade they would/could build. Factory original.

[375Short]

The modern gun manufacturers have gave up on prostitution and seem more reflective of market driven vampires. Nonetheless, I think we will need to put or collective thoughts together and define what a replacement can be. The ability to order “anything you want” days of Winchester and Marlin have been gone longer than most of us (maybe all) have been alive.

Maybe something like “model specific, mass production, cataloged factory options or equivalent reproduction”. Not sure what Mass Production means as a number but it’s more than a custom order. Example, maybe: Uberti has mass produced 1873’s with 30” barrels. You can replace a Uberti 73 barrel with one of those 30” barrels or a copy of one but you can not replace a 26” model Winchester 94 with a 30”. You can replace the 94 barrel with a 26”, 16”, 20” or other length and profile fitting the description earlier. We all recognize the options that have been commonly on MANY model 94’s. I think we will all recognize the one that does not fit the spirit or intention. In layman terms, don’t try and game the system just replace a barrel with one you darn well know represents what is or was available from the store shelves in the first place.

With some thought we can define something that keeps the intent of the sport sound and the playing field level yet reasonably allow a barrel replacement.

[375Short]

IMG_1282.png

Interesting point on how currently the rule may not serve us well and be ambiguous. If I purchased this kit I would own an original barrel. If I had an old, complete, discount store action and fixtures laying around I could essentially build a new rifle around my original barrel. It would met the current rule and cost far less than a current production rifle. It would also be representative of a factory production commemorative just uglier.
But I couldn’t buy this kit, unscrew the barrel of my hurricane damaged 1978 rifle and screw this one on? How in the world could we tell the difference and does it matter? We can safely assume barrels have been replaced, probably in a way that the rifle closely resembles one people are used to seeing. That is probably okay and not damaging our sport but it would sure suck if it turned into a distracting drama at a match.

This is a good year for a competitor meeting at the National’s in PA and the Western in NM. Between the two matches, feedback on this topic and any others would be available from a large representation of the sport.