Posted: 10/24/2005 11:22:38 AM EDT
| i have been told that polygonal rifling is more accurate that lands and grooves. and i have also heard that it wears better. is there any reason why more pistols don't use this? is it inherently more expensive or more difficult to produce? |
Yes, to all of the above. Glock & H&K uses different rifling than Beretta, Ruger, S&W, etc., IIRC. No other mfgrs other than Glock/H&K do this, AFAIK. |
| There is very little difference in accuracy between polygonal and traditional rifling. The two big differences are in manufacturing costs and barrel life. Lands and grooves can be cut into a barrel by any competent gunsmith. Polygonal barrels are rifled during the forging process by very expensive computer controled equipment. H&K uses a fluted chamber which is also part of the forging process. Only a large firearms manufacturer can afford to use this kind of process. Polygonal barrels are also easier on the bullet jacket, although you can't shoot lead through them. Polygonal rifling also lasts much longer because of how the bullet jacket and expanding gasses interact with the barrel. The bottom line is only a few gun companies use this type of rifling. Glock, (at the request of police agencies), had to modify their process because Polygonal rifling is harder to balistically trace. |
i was going to ask if it was ballistically harder to trace. thanks for answering that already. so basically one big reason a company like ruger or s&w wouldn't use polygonal rifling is to keep costs down? |
Ruger hammer forges their barrels. The only difference between hammer forging lands and grooves and a polygon is the mandrel. I would actually expect a polygonal mandrel to be cheaper to produce. I think all the other manufacturers want their customers to be able to use lead bullets w/o liability issues coming up. If it ain't broke why fix it. Kent |