[Riposte1]

Denton;

I dont have any reference on that except just general experience but I suspect you are right.

I do know that the .220 Swift and the .264 were pariahs in the gun press durng the 60's for being "barrel burners". I have both (one made in 1958 and one made around 1968) and both still shoot well today - but neither are my most often shot rifles. I hasten to point out that I have always been satisfied with .5 to .75 MOA groups in either varmint or long range rifles. A benchrester might think both of them are degraded to the point that they need replacing but I have not noticed any change in them because my ammo is probably far from "perfect".

On another note, the Marines, I was told in class recently, have done a little work on how M4s are shot (they are a late convert to the carbine vs the longer M16 with heavier barrel). Shot the way the military normally shoots - pretty slow and 40-60 rounds per training day - the barrels will last around 50,000 rounds (I take it "last" means function and not exceed the around 3 MOA standard - that does not mean some of us would not replace it as "toast"). However shot the way some folks train (500 to 1,000 rounds a day with session in which 90, well 84, rounds fired in a minute) then the barrels only last 3,000 rounds by their standards.

Big difference!

Riposte