As another poster would say, Welp.............
I think Kevin Thomas said he performed excruciating research on barrels 'til they were almost dead, and they didn't last longer/were more accurate/easier to clean/make him more sexy, etc., because he was probably told, "Hey Kev, looka these'n try 'em out, cuz they been cryo'd; or cryoed; or CRYOed." And, not doing any investigation as to WHAT, exactly was necessary to perform a proper process, accepted the statement as a fact (and really, why shouldn't he; some one w/credibility, misplaced or not, pronounced it so) And, he found no increase in 1. accuracy 2. longevity so, automatically, "This ))&^% don't wurk" was readily evident, and that was it, and he ain't gonna BE made a fool of again, or admit that he possibly ever was.
But, when I spoke to a senior manager of a ballistics lab that had done some experiments w/"cryo'd barrels" and told him that there was a difference in heat acquisition/dissipation, I was told, "When we did tests we never looked at that", in a tone that suggested he was amazed that no one in the lab looked at it before.
Now, ol' Kev prob'ly did a great job in checking things out, as far as it got. However, if he didn't have a properly cryogenically processed barrel to begin with, where does that leave us?
Well, for one thing, would Kevin even entertain the fact that perhaps he didn't have what he thought he had? Would he, or anyone, even consider the fact that perhaps they'd been fed a string by some charlatan who was only trying to make a fast buck and didn't CARE whether it worked or not? Or, that there were some people who really DID want to bring folks a process that works and invested their money in equipment they'd been TOLD would do the job, and swear that it works, but don't have enough bucks to back up to square one and re-invest in equipment that really DOES do, what it says it CAN and WILL do, day after day, year after year?
And why are so many unwilling or unABLE to entertain the possibility that maybe, just maybe, somebody has something that really DOES work, I just hadn't FOUND it yet??
As far as Kreiger and others go, numerous people were threatened w/prosecution for infringing on a "patent" that was held by another company. But, amazingly when that patent was called up, on the P&T Office website, Guess what?? That patent was listed as "expired for lack of payment of maintenance fees to the P&T Office." Gee, what happened?
Now, some people can turn out a cryogenic process with their old freezer box, but you wouldn't want to pay for it. Why? Well they're going to have to wrap everything up in covers, like Turkish towels, to protect your parts from the LN, 'cause they're gonna be pumping a S)%$#$load of nitrogen through there, because damned close to as fast as they pump it in, its going to be wicking out as a result of the breakdown of the poor insulation between the walls of the "processor", and as a result of continued expansion & contraction, that insulation will eventually be lying in a puddle between those walls. They will probably use 20 times or more than the LN used by a V-I machine, then they'll have to unload and unwrap your stuff and then put it in some kind of tempering oven for the heat cycle, then unload that and rewrap it in the packaging you sent it in for the return to you.
Now, if all this sounds like so much BS that I'm telling you, just THINK about my next question carefully.
Say you have a choice, you can put your hot coffee in a Mason jar, and put it in a:
1. Wooden box
2. Refridgerator (turned off) OR:
3. A Thermos bottle
and take it to work, which would you choose for the best bet your coffee will be HOT the first time you take some, and reasonably WARM, still, by lunchtime?? DING!! You got it!!: A vacuum-insulated thermos bottle.
There really IS something better out there, but because the wear resistance has increased, so, probably, has the time to when you will notice a change in accuracy. Now, some people have seen an immediate accuracy increase, and they're lucky, but I wouldn't bet money on it, and some have had to increase the charge weight; while some have just continued to use the same load they always have and just shot it, noticing a gradual
accuracy increase as time went on, until it no longer improved.
And some not-so-good barrels may only show a slight improvement.
How do you know how YOURS will do? Unfortunately, you don't, there's no way to predict that.
Remember, though, a barrelmaker can't tell you which barrel WILL shoot, they can only tell you which barrel WON 'T shoot. And, since barrelmakers can SELL far more than they can produce, there is no financial incentive for them to spend hard-earned time and money on something they're convinced doesn't work, anyway.
I really hope I have cleared some of the air on this, and here's something else to consider, how many times have you heard, "Talk is Cheap"? Well, you have to HAVE a couple barrels done before you can make a comparison, and you have to KNOW the technology is there that will work on your barrel, if you have a decent one. But before you send a fantastic barrel you really should shoot a couple barrels from a reputable processor so you have an idea as to what to expect, based on experience.
I have probably shot more processed barrels than anyone else on this board, and know numerous others that have, too; and they all would much rather pay for even a factory barrel (although a couple have ordered barrels from excellent makers and had them done) to be done on a rifle they really wanted to perform than to let it not be done, and numerous handgunners will have most, if not all (depending on how many they have) done as a matter of choice, no question.
Is it for everyone? No, thats why they have horse races, NASCAR, air races.....
Well.....you get the idea.
HMmmm...That's on a temporary hold, the truck blew an engine and had to be towed to Dallas.