published bbl weights

[WadePatton]

Not that it matters much when spark comes to powder, but then aren't we the nose-pickers who fret the details?  To wit: At my level of development I would be inclined to believe that given a particular profile of bbl within a given "weight"-that in fact a larger bore would _always_ result* in a lighter bbl.

But then none of the published charts I've seen agree with this premise.  Comments?

I suppose I/we/they could calculate the weight of the removed material (roughly, not correcting for rifling/rate variations) and get truer comparisons.  Or do rifling rates/number of grooves cause such wild variations?

IOW a 40 should be lighter than a 36_every time_ (etc. per calibers)) unless you change external dimensions-which are defined by the weight "class" A,B, etc.

Methinks that the numbers got jumbled/typoed somewhere in the process of compiling and publishing them.

*assuming rifled/rifled.

[billd]

Don't do what I did and read Rice's charts as decimal weights.  If the charts says 4.12 lbs it means 4 lbs 12 ounces.  I thought the same as you and called them asking the same question your asking here.

Bill

[54Bucks]

 Yes any barrel with the same length and exterior profile made from the same steel will be lightened by removing more metal for a larger calibre compared to a smaller calibre. It has already been pointed out that Rice's published weights are in pounds and ounces. They seem to bear out a larger bore being lighter in comparison to a smaller one:
             42" Golden Age(Bwt):
                   .40 cal. =5lb. 9oz.
                   .45 cal. =5lb. 1oz.
                   .50 cal. =4lb. 7oz.
 I looked at Tracks site and their weights listed for swamped Colerains make no sense so I looked there no further. Call me a nose picker but after building or having built for me about a doz. longrifles, I base the plan for my next one around the barrel weight, length, and profile. My priority is to use it and I want it to fit and please me when I spend that much!

[WadePatton]

oh, throw the decimal system out when dealing with numbers... !

I'll revisit and do some conversions...seef that makes more sense, but then i _do_ recall some being heavier (listed as) with less metal.