Re: Anyone used a hammerhead barrel on a mag?

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 13:25:34 -0800, "Jose"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>I am familiar with the development history of the barrel, but I have yet to
>see a ballistic test that compares the Hammerhead to any other smoothbore
>barrel showing quantitative proof that the barrel is inherently more
>accurate by design.  It is all hype till proven.  The hammerhead looks nice
>and I would trust it to be a well made piece of equipment, but until I see
>some bench rest tests comparing the hammerhead to two piece and one piece
>smoothbores, at varying distances with different brands of paint and a
>matrix showing accuracy at the various ranges with the various types of
>paint, I will continue to be skeptical of their claims.  When making claims
>of technical superiority of your product it is PARAMOUNT that you provide
>the quantitative data for critical analysis.  Otherwise, you just seem like
>another gimmicky company asking a lot of money for a product that doesn't
>out perform competitive equipment that is half the price.  Given the price
>of the hammerheads, I would think that having that kind of proof would not
>only have been within budget, but of utmost importance to anyone trying to
>sell them based on technological merit.

Right.... But what brought up the question was the fact that I was
exchanging fire with someone who's balls were grouping within a few
inches of the corner of the bunker I was behind, and mine were
grouping within a foot of his bunker. He definitely had an advantage.
My 12" Lapco wasn't shooting unusually, his 'whatever' was just more
accurate. I assumed it was the barrel. I also have a 10" Dye that is
not as accurate as the Lapco and 3 times as heavy.....

Any suggestions on a barrel for my mag?

Mike Smith