Cylinder Throat Reaming

[Rex]

My L frame Smith has always leaded the first 1/2 inch of the barrel. A bullet sized .357 is a hard push through the cylinder, one sized .358 must be beat through with a dowl and hammer.
Question is who reams the cylinder throats, have you had it done and what were your results?
Thanks a Million,
Rex

[MtGun44]

What is your groove diameter? Throat diameter ALONE, especially when about in the 'good to go'
range (as yours is) is not any indicator of a need for throat reaming. If your throats are .3565 or
so and your groove diam is .356, you are OK. With .357, probably OK. If .358, then it is likely
that you would see some improvement reaming and polishing to groove diam or groove diam
+.001".

Also, how do you know the diameter of your boolits that you are testing the throats with? If you
are using a caliper, you are using an instrument with inadequate accuracy to answer the question
properly. You need a micrometer that reads to .0001", available from Enco and others online.
We have many times found that Enco tools has Fowler brand .0001" mics available for under
$35. Necessary tool to do this troubleshooting properly. Calipers are accurate to +/-.001". Your
".357" measured boolit may be .358 or .356 and not violate the accuracy standard for the instrument.
Most throat accurate check is with machinists pin gauges.

Check for likely threaded area barrel tight spot, this is pretty common in S&W revolvers. Best fix
is to have a SKILLED gunsmith remove the barrel and reset with much less 'crush fit' excess
tension. My guy uses red locktight and sets them only a bit more than hand tight.
Second choice is fire lapping. Once unloaded the barrel will relax to eliminate the tight spot,
then the smith will face off a HAIR from the back face of the barrel shoulder and reset it.

Slugging the bore should show you a tight spot, if you have one.

My bet is your barrel diam is .357 and throats are .357 or 8 and this is probably just fine,
POSSIBLY an increase of .001 maybe called for, but you cannot tell with what you have so
far. Other possibilities is boolit design, lube quality and quantity, bore roughness.

Without accurate slugging info, you cannot make a rational diagnosis. Also, exactly what
boolit, what powder charge, what lube?

As to the direct answer, many report that cylindersmith (search here for the website or e-mail)
does a good job. Personally, I have reamed and polished my own in the two cylinders where
it was definitely needed.

Bill

[crabo]

cylindersmith.com

[462]

Slug the barrel per MtGun44's suggestion.

Alloy, and type of powder and charge may be the culprits, too.

I would remove metal only as a last resort.

[geargnasher]

Sounds like a good case of "thread choke", like MTGun suggested. The barrel may have a restriction where it was threaded into the frame and the thread crush made a tight spot, ruining obturation when the boolit passes the tight spot which allows for gas leaks and cutting of the boolit, and lead dust will get sprayed up ahead of the boolit and ironed on the bore. If the pressure and alloy are of the right combination, the boolit might deform enough to reseal (obturate) the bore again and stop the leading after an inch or two, and leave a mostly clean barrel after that point out to the muzzle or the next restriction, often at the front sight.

Personally, I ream all my revolver cylinders to at least .001 if not .0015" over the groove diameter AFTER removing any restrictions by firelapping. This completely eliminates any leading issues and the firelapping polishes the otherwise rough forcing cone so it doesn't abrade lead as the boolit engraves.

If you're handy with tools and are very careful, you can ream your own cylinders for less than $30, if your gun proves to need a reaming and you're interested, I'll tell you how.

Gear

[markinalpine]

CastBoolits member 2 guns wrote an article that I posted here: http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showpost.php?p=1111137&postcount=1
and prompltly put my foot in it because i didn't realize he was a member. Oh, well, I'm over the embarrassment.
His article deals primarily with firelapping, but he does give good information on measuring throats and bores. Give his article a read at GunBlast: http://www.gunblast.com/FerminGarza-Firelapping.htm

Good luck,
Mark [smilie=s:

[Guesser]

I am currently working with the same problem in a S&W 65-1. It is a recent acquisition, probably a police trade in, it leads the chamber throats heavily, forcing cone and bore are not a problem. My chamber throats slug .356-.3575. My bore is a uniform .357, no tight spots. All measuements were done with a Mitutoyo 0-1" micrometer. I'm going to have the chamber throats opened up to a uniform .359, as I size all my cast bullets .358. I did this to a Ruger 45/45 revolver, took the throats out to .4525 with a bore of .4515, cast bullets sized to .452. It made a tremendous difference, in leading and accuracy.

[geargnasher]

Guesser, why not go .358" with the throats and hone out a .357" sizer until it gets your boolits in the .3578" range with your favorite alloy? .359" seems a bit much. I do the .4525" throat/.4520" boolit thing with all of my .45 revolvers.

Gear

[Guesser]

The reason I want to go .359, or at least .3585 is that I have Colt and Ruger 357 revolvers that shoot my .358 bullets, several different molds and weights, perfectly. It is only the S&W that is the problem. This is the second S&W stainless that I've had the problem with. The first; beautiful 66-5, 3", RB, dated 1999. It was impossible, 12 rounds and throats were leaded, accuracy failed, went to market, traded for a Colt Army Special 32-20; OH YEAH!!!!!! I like the 65-1, as the heft and accuracy before leading is identical to a 10-6 HB in 38 Special. My blue S&W revolvers don't have this problem, only stainless. This 65-1 is the only 357 I have that gives me problems, it is P&R, I'd like it to shoot with my other 38's and 357's.

[cajun shooter]

Guesser, When I was a firearms instructor and armorer for the P:olice Dept. we would open all throats with a 11 degree tool for shooting lead bullets. All PPC guns carry that 11 degree throat. It stops you from cutting lead and spraying the face of anyone on either side and the leading of the throat. You also have to reface the barrel to make sure it is flat with the cylinder. When S&W builds all the guns they sell that are intended for police or personal defence they are set up for the J bullets which would not cause a problem with your gun. It would meet all factory specs. After all these years and several auto schools my go to gun is a S&W SS 65 3" bbl RB gun. With a 45 auto for back up.

[Lloyd Smale]

he does good work at a reasonable price and has a fast turnover.
cylindersmith.com

[MtGun44]

"11 degree throat"?? !!

cajun shooter -
I believe you have your terminology wrong. The throat is the cylindrical area ahead of the
chamber in the cylinder. The forcing cone is the conical tapered entry to the barrel at the
rear. 11 deg is a good angle for a forcing cone, but will ruin a throat.

Guesser,
I, too, would not go over the intended boolit size with a throat. If you want to hit "optimum"
dimensions with a .357 groove diameter, you would want .358" throats and .358 to .359 diam
boolits. You want the boolit precisely guided as it exits the case, any slack just permits
tilting and misalignment. IME, boolit diam matching throats or .001 to .002 larger has given
best results.

Bill

[Guesser]

OK, I understand all the opinions and see a conflict between what works for 45 and what is being recommended for 38/357. Geargnasher does as I do for 45: .4525 throat and .452 bullets. MTgun44 recommends a tighter fit in throat for 357 throat/bullet. Why the difference?
Is it a Molysteel vs. stainless thing?

[BOOM BOOM]

HI,
I would suggest measuring all the throats 1st. and honing them so they are all uniform. Then shoot, to see the effect. It seems they often are not uniform from the factory.
The step down in throat to forcing cone to bore dia. seems to also be beneficial "usually".
And yes I did this to my 1 & only 357, & 1 & only 44. keepers.:Fire::Fire:

[Guesser]

I know what size the throats are on the 65-1, the largest is a snug .357. I want to shoot cast sized .358, the throat should not down size the bullets prior to the cone. I have this niggling sense that the difference in alloy steels has something to do with it. The stainless seems to "grab" more so than the blued steel cylinders. Any one have an opinion on that??

[MtGun44]

"the throat should not size the bullets prior to the cone."

Your opinion is based on what? Do you have experience where slightly larger boolits
than the throat caused degraded accuracy over loose fitted boolits? This presumes
a barrel groove diameter smaller than the throat, of course.

I presume a proper throat is larger than the groove diameter. My opinion is based on
many target results. In my guns, I have occasionally had good or very good results
with boolits matching the throat, but most often get best results with +.001 and
+.002 works just as well. I suggest you conduct your own experiments to see what
works best for you, unless you already have. My recommendations are to help those
that have not yet tried these things to understand what is most likely to work for
them, too.

My experience says that the best possible alignment of the boolit in the throat as it
exits the case produces the best accuracy. Why would any slop between the boolit and
the thoat be likely to improve alignment and accuracy? This does not make sense and
does not match my experience.

Some find that boolits can slug up to throat diameter, so they fit even if undersized
originally. It would seem that depending on this is unnecessary, although it may very
well work in some examples. I do not use extremely hard alloys, yet I still find best
accuracy with zero slop to interference fit. I have typically had dismal 'accuracy' when the
boolit is well under throat size, with accuracy steadily improving as I increase boolit diameter.
Once I am at throat diameter, it is usually OK to good, and often is better at greater than
throat diameter by a small amount.

Bill

[Guesser]

I don't know much about "target" accuracy. I am talking "field" accuracy. My bullets are cast of air cooled wheel weights for 357 and 50/50 ww/pb for 38 Special. Same molds, just different alloy. My Colt OMM, OMS, and OMT all have throats of .357-.3575, the bores of these guns run from .3555 to .3565. If I understand you correctly, then I should be experiencing serious problems with these fine revolvers; I don't!!! The only revolver I have a problem with is this 65-1 and it doesn't matter if I use 38 Special, the same loads as in every other 38 or 357 revolver in my fleet, or if I use 357 in the 65-1, also the same 357 loads that I shoot in the rest of my 357 revolvers. This is the only SS revolver in 357/38 that I shoot. I have to think it is the material and dimensions as opposed to the ammunition, and the problem is only in the chamber throats, no leading of cone or bore.
I size everything for 38 and 357 to .358.

[leadman]

Guesser, your other guns have what I think are perfect dimensions as far as having larger throats than the bores. If you can change your stainless gun to the same you should be good to go.
I have a J frame that has .3565" throats and .356" bore and shoot .359" as my 27 needs this with no problem. I don't want to keep boolits of the same style in 2 different sizes.

[canyon-ghost]

http://www.cylindersmith.com/

[bravokilo]

recommend "cylindersmith". According to his website:


"Effective immediately, I will no longer work on S&W .32 , .38/357 cylinders." ?????


BK

[Guesser]

I have the capability of having the cylinder dressed right here in this little town. I've done several 45 chambers myself and may invest in the tooling to do this S&W 357 myself. Just haven't decided exactly what I want the end result to be. That's why I'm engaged in this discussion, here. There is a similar one over at S&W forum that centers on a late model 66, same problem I had with my 66 till I turned it for a Colt. All good info, seasoned with opinion, thats what I like.

[MtGun44]

"My Colt OMM, OMS, and OMT all have throats of .357-.3575, the bores
of these guns run from .3555 to .3565. If I understand you correctly,
then I should be experiencing serious problems with these fine revolvers;
I don't!!! "

These are wonderful dimensions, a large part of the reason that Colt revolvers have a much
deserved reputation for great accuracy. Ideal revolver dimensions are throats about .001 or
.002 larger than the groove diameter and an ideal boolit is about throat diameter or throat
plus about .001 or even .002. A standard .357 or .358 lead factory boolit will exactly meet
the 'near perfect' requirement for your Colts, so I would absolutely expect zero leading and
excellent accy.

Bill

[9.3X62AL]

Surprising info concerning Cylindersmith's services.

I have been fortunate enough to be blessed with 38 Special and 357 Magnum revolvers that have decent dimensional relationships. Many of these are older examples, though the Ruger BisHawk is c. 1995 and the 686 x 4" from the early 90s.

My one venture into re-working revolver throats came as a result of another BisHawk, in 45 Colt. Also from the mid-90s, it had the common characteristic of .452" grooves and .448"-.449" throats. Dunno who dreamed up that regimen at Sturm/Ruger, but I'm glad they got past that practice.

Anyway, my 45 revolver moulds all cast .455"-.456" boolits, so I honed my cylinder throats to .453" and size my boolits to .454". I also got a .452" expander spud, because the RCBS T/C sizer die REALLY undersizes brass and the same die set's .449" expander spud made for tough boolit seating. The results have been very positive--fine accuracy with boolits ranging from 200 grain SWC through 260 grain SWC, and zero leading.

[geargnasher]

The reason MTGun and I both recommend tight fits with the .357 is because we have both experimented and found that tight fit=best accuracy.

There is a potential issue, though, and it has to do with field reliability. If your chamber leades aren't all exactly the same length and taper (and if the cylinder throats are different sizes to begin with, they won't be), then you could have chambering issues after a few shots due to carbon buildup creating an interference fit. That's why I prefer .0002" clearance and a boolit with a long nose that will ride the chamber throat, not pilot the oversized first band in the leade. If I had a better way of controlling the leade depth and taper, I would be more likely to load slightly oversized boolits that "just" touched the first band to the leade and were about half a thousandth oversize. The differene between all the different revolvers I shoot precludes this, however, so my solution is to make sure the boolits I shoot will pass though the cylinder throats with a snug, but not "interference" fit, that way they'll shoot in anything I own.

I've also found that the less you size a boolit, the better the accuracy, so sizing it in the lube-sizer, then squeezing it into the case, firing it through the cylinder throat and then through the forcing cone gives the boolit at leas four opportunities for irregular distortion. If I can get that down to two or three I have better results.

The reason for .4525" throats in my .45 Colts is that that is the common denominator, if I could get them down to .4521" it would be better, but I don't shoot them at ranges over 50 yards very much so it really doesn't matter. I did have a custom mould made that I size to .4524 and has a front band way out front of the case mouth so it pilots in the throat, accuracy was improved greatly at distance, but after a box or so I have to run a brush through the throats to get them to chamber easily.

Gear

[MtGun44]

My experience with my Ruger .45 Colt BH is very close to Al's report. Way too tight throats,
reamed and polished to .4525, load .454, works great, accurate and clean. Also did the
too tight .45 ACP cylinder, which somehow -with that long throat section- is slightly more
accurate than the .45 Colt cyl.

Bill

[Guesser]

I did the Ruger 45/45 reaming also. .4525 and sized .452/.453/.454 all work very well. That is what is confusing me with the statements that a 357 revolver cylinder should be a tight fit. How is a .452 bullet in a .4525 throat a tight fit, .453+, yes but .452; Idunno!!!!!!!!!
I am inclined to do my 65-1 cylinder .3585 for use with .358 bullets in a .357 bore. How is that different than the 45/45 solution of .4525/.452?

[MtGun44]

I use a .454 in a .4525 throat, I call that an interference fit and it works great for me.

Please explain how ANY slop which permits the boolit to tilt could do anything besides
give up some alignment? Seems to me like any clearance at all will permit misalignment.
Sure smaller is better than bigger, but NONE/negative is best in my experience. Maybe
other issues with a particular revolver will overshadow the small error in alignment by a
loose throat fit, but I hate giving up any precision if I don't have to.

What do you see as the advantage of a loose fit? You keep struggling against an
interference fit, but I hear no reason that you propose why purposely adding slop should
be preferred.

Bill

[Guesser]

I don't want a loose fit, my .3585 throats in my Troopers and Rugers work extremely well with .358 bullets. My .4525 throats work extremely well with my .452 bullets. What I want is a bullet that exits the throat .001 over bore diameter, with the afore mentioned figure I will get that. I want all my 357 revolvers to work with the same loads.

[MtGun44]

Maybe it is just definitions. In my definition, if the boolit is ANY smaller than
the throat, it is loose, so some tipping can occur. I will agree that .0005 is VERY,
VERY small amount of gap, so very little tipping can occur. In my plan, my
smallest boolit (if I can get it!) is throat size. Most desirable is throat size plus
.001. While I know that .0005 is a tiny amount, I still can't see why I would
ever want any gap. I want a slight interference fit.

Whatever works for you.

Bill

[geargnasher]

I think I know what's going on here, let me take a stab at it.

Boolit design and seating depth affect greatly what will or won't chamber in a revolver. You cannot chamber a .454" boolit in a .4525" throat. It is impossible without a strong mechanical press. The only reason it works is the front band is riding somewhere in the larger, tapered area between the chamber and the throat.

What I do is try to use a boolit with a long nose and front band which will pilot in the nominal throat diameter, and actually reach it. Most boolit designs are too short to reach the actual throat, that's what makes it possible for so many different boolits to fit in so many different revolvers. The way I do it, I need .0002-3" clearance for reliable chambering when fouled slightly. Lots of ways to achieve good fit, as long as the boolit is large enough for the barrel when it gets there.

Gear

[luvtn]

I am confused. Mtgun44 says he uses a .454 boolit in a .4525 throat(huh?). Then Geargnasher states you can't chamber a .454 in a .4525 throat. Which is what I thought. Wouldn't that raise pressures alot to do so? I thought the throat needs to be .4525 and the barrel .453? Or a similar ratio.
luvtn

[JIMinPHX]

Reaming throats is a bit of a risky business. When you take on a job like that, you have 6 opportunities to owe somebody a new gun. I have found that Ruger throats are often rough from the factory. It is sometimes hard to improve that rough finish with a reamer. I'm not sure what alloy they have chosen, but it may not be the best one out there when it comes to ease of finishing.

[MtGun44]

No problem at all chambering a .454 boolit in a gun with .4525 throats. The boolit does
NOT go into the throat when chambered. There is a conical section which tapers from the
CASE diameter down to the throat diameter.

I am sure that it is possible to have a very short transition in the chamber design of some
guns, so that an unusually short tapered cone from the full case diameter (much larger than
the boolit, obviously) down to the throat diameter could exist, but I have never run into
an example. Typically, it is the other way around - too much slop.

Elmer Keith's design intent by putting the large full diameter driving band on his boolit
designs OUTSIDE the case was to get the front corner of the full diameter driving band
closer to the taper from chamber to throat with this driving band to align the boolit more
centrally in the chamber, minimizing the tilting of the boolit as it exits the case and
drives up into the throat. Understand that the loaded round OD is a good bit smaller than
the ID of the chamber, so the round is laying there, somewhat off center as it is fired.
There is still clearance in all my guns between this tapered portion in front of the chamber
and the throat, so that the boolit touches nothing.

So far, I have not run into a revolver that would not chamber a cartridge loaded with a
Keith design (which should be the worst example of possible interference) that was .001
(or sometimes .002) over the throat diameter.

I suppose as one reams out the throats, and then plans to exceed that diameter, the
risk of hitting the tapered portion increases, since the original taper was designed by
the manufacturer to work with the originally smaller throat, so maybe after increasing the throat
and then oversizing a boolit on that, maybe there is more chance of having a chambering
problem. I can only report that it has not happened to me yet.

Bill

[geargnasher]

I am confused. Mtgun44 says he uses a .454 boolit in a .4525 throat(huh?). Then Geargnasher states you can't chamber a .454 in a .4525 throat. Which is what I thought. Wouldn't that raise pressures alot to do so? I thought the throat needs to be .4525 and the barrel .453? Or a similar ratio.
luvtn

I was going to draw you a picture and post it, but Bill was kind enough to explain what I explained again, but better and in more detail. Read and understand what he said, along with the second paragraph of my post #30.

I have designed a couple of boolits which are long enough to ride the throats of my revolvers, which have been reamed to exact dimensions, along with consistent alloy and carefully honed sizers to keep the tight tolerances from stacking. Here are the examples:

http://accuratemolds.com/img/bullets/detail/45-260G-D.png
http://accuratemolds.com/img/bullets/detail/36-160E-D.png

Note how far forward the bearing surfaces are from the crimp grooves in both designs, this will pilot in the actual chamber throats of every revolver I own. The entire boolit is sized, after it's through age hardening, to .0002-3" under chamber throat dimensions. That's ten-thouandths.

This is just my way of fitting boolits to revolvers, it has limited applications, but it sure makes tiny groups. Much easier to do it like Bill explained.

Gear

[Guesser]

Thanks to all for the explanations. All I'm after is getting to the end of leading in the throats, none of my other 38/357 revolvers do it so the 65-1 shouldn't do it either. If it can't be easily remedied it will go to market. Life is too short to have to fight with a revolver that can be easily replaced. Thanks again.

[Bass Ackward]

The reason MTGun and I both recommend tight fits with the .357 is because we have both experimented and found that tight fit=best accuracy. Gear

Isn't it something how results can differ. I have a 627 that shoots many good groups if I stay anything less than 358. 358 to .362 and I will get 9 to 14 inch groups with anything @ 25 yards.

Throats are .359. 11 degree cone. And no lead soft or hard, .356 to .362.

[MtGun44]

Wow, Bass - that is very interesting.

My worst revolver is my S&W 1937 with (IIRC) about .455 throats. The biggest I have
shot so far is .454 and they are far more accurate than .452 (.45 ACP, it is a Brazilian
contract 1917). With hard commercial .452 boolits it is 14-20 inch "groups" at 25 yds.
With moderate loads with commercial hard Lyman 452423 (Keith SWC for .45 ACP) it would do
about 8-10". I found a mold for 452423 that dropped at .454, and with moderate loads
it went to about 3-4" (IIRC, far way from home and records now). As I upped the powder,
(and I expect I was bumping up the diameter) the groups steadily shrank ( and moved
from 6" left of POA) with 7.0 gr Unique giving about 2.5" group and only 1-2" left of POA.
Kieth says 7.5 gr Unique with this boolit is the best for 1917s, but I chickened out at
7.0 gr, not wanting to hurt anything or anyone (me!).

I have ordered a Miha 452423 clone HP in .455 diam (which I hope will drop at .456) and plan
on shooting some unsized in the S&W 1937 and a new to me Colt 1917, also with .455
throats.

Bill

[Bass Ackward]

Strange. But always why you experiment.

It's clearly alignment, because if I cut bullet weight / length to 140 grains, then it will accept a hard .359 diameter, 360 soft without TOO many fliers.

But the larger the bullet diameter, the sooner it contacts steel and the better your alignment has to be. Also helps to have a worn taper to accommodate that which this gun hasn't developed yet.

So my options are to shoot it as it likes for now with lighter (shorter) bullets in the hope that one day it will be less finicky. Or to go heavy and large on diameter and force the gun to shoot (wear) lose until it will align. (enough)

Just wanted folks to see the other side or perfection.

[cajun shooter]

Mt Gun 44, I stand corrected and was not thinking straight the day of that posting. I have been to several schools and worked on many guns and do know that the throat is the front of the cylinder. I was thinking about the forcing cone as you said. I am very sorry to the forum for losing track and posting info that had no place for the question. I have several health problems and should stay away from the pc after taking my meds. Take Care David

[geargnasher]

This link is a pretty good explanation and illustration of boolit design for revolvers and how the front band or nose typically fits in the throat. It shows clearly why it's harder to fit tangent-ogive nose boolits perfectly to more than one revolver, and how larger than throat boolits can still chamber and shoot.

http://www.accuratemolds.com/BulletDesignFeatures.pdf

Gear

[felix]

Revolters have multiple throats, one for each cylinder hole and one for the barrel. I have defined a throat to include freebore and leade together. There is no leade in the cylinder, and no freebore in the barrel. The literature out there makes the probability of confusion close to 100 percent. Is it a hand, or is it a pawl that indexes the cylinder to a hole? Is it a bolt, or is it a cylinder stop that holds the cylinder in place for a shot? It's all nuts, purely and simply, and therefore a miracle that anybody understands someone else when talking revolters. ... felix

[tonyjones]

The "revolters" in Egypt right now all seem to be fully throated.
Tony

[LAH]

cylindersmith.com

++1++

[Rex]

Thanks for all the replies, but it seems from his ad that the cylindersmith no longer does 38s.
The revolver shoots good, just leads. I guess some 0000 steel wool will have to do the trick for now.
Rex

[Guesser]

Mine; the one I started this thread about is out of the frame, disassembled from the ejector assembly and will be opened up to .3585 before it gets reinstalled in the 65-1. This process will bring it into line with my other 357 magnum revolvers that do not lead the throats. I still have the ratty little suspicion that it being stainless steel is a factor. We shall see!!!!!!!!!!!

[MtGun44]

Several different ones, SS and carbon steel. I find no connection to the materials.

Bill

[geargnasher]

Me either.

Gear

[Guesser]

We proved with hydraulics that SS tubing was more elastic than carbon steel, that was back in the 70's on hydraulic deck machinery. Had to figure it in when we redesigned for high pressure applications. That is what is trickling around in the back room with all the other trivia gleaned from 65 years. I'll report back.
I just remembered the Ruger experience with the 454 and the elastic Super RedHawk cylinders. That was fun too.

[MtGun44]

Depending on exactly what you mean by more elastic. If you mean stretches more
for a given load? Then no, they have the same modulus of elasticity within a small
margin. Some stainless steels are not too strong and will start to stretch permanently
sooner than some carbon steels, but this is depended on a particular alloy and heat
treat or work hardening state compared to a particular carbon steel and partucular heat
treat or work hardening state, NOT something true across the almost meaninglessly
broad term "stainless steel". SS is broken into two very broad classes that have almost
nothing in common with each other except resistance to corrosion. One heat treats
much like carbon steel the other class will not heat treat at all, but will work harden to an
amazing degree. Saying "stainless steel" is onlly slightly more specific than saying "dirt".
At least austenitic or martensitic stainless helps a lot to narrow it down, but really the
alloy number is needed to make much of a comparison in a particular way.

Things like leading seem to be totally unrelated to the real world engineering difference.
Now, surface roughness of a particular part or barrel? Sure could be an issue, but not
nearly as simple and broad as "SS vs carbon steel".

Good luck, I hope it does what you want.

Bill

[Guesser]

Nice thing about it is that it can always go to market.