WHCKMSTR1,
Much of what you speak is believed by much of main stream shooters. However, right here on our own Beartooth we have disproved this. When proper care is taken, and quality cast bullets used, the Micro-Groove system performs, if not superior to, equal to the ballard cut rifling.
Please take the time to read through some of the major break-throughs we've encountered here at Beartooth Bullets when dealing with the Micro-Groove rifling.
Our FAQ, about three quarter of the way down.
http://beartoothbullets.com/faq/index.htm
Tech Notes:
http://beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/archive_tech_notes.htm/19
And compare the group results from the ballard to the micro-groove here (about half way down, large chart):
http://beartoothbullets.com/tech_notes/archive_tech_notes.htm/28
Take a look at the charts below:
<table border="1" width="455"><tr><td width="411" colspan="3"><p align="center">
<font face="verdana,arial" size="2">Test Load For .444 Marlin:</font><font face="verdana,arial" size="1"><font color="#800000">.44 Caliber 325g WLNGC/56.0g H335/WLRP/Remington Brass/C.O.L. 2.570"</font></font></td></tr><tr><td width="92" align="center">
<font face="verdana,arial" size="1">Bullet Sizing Diameter</font></td><td width="155" align="center">
<font face="verdana,arial" size="1">Group Size Marlin 444S (Micro-Groove)</font></td><td width="186" align="center">
<font face="verdana,arial" size="1">Group Size Marlin 444P (Ballard Cut Rifling)</font></td></tr> <tr><td width="92" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">.428"</font></td><td width="155" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">4.64"</font></td><td width="186" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">4.28"</font></td></tr><tr><td width="92" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">.429"</font></td><td width="155" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">4.26"</font></td><td width="186" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">3.97"</font></td></tr><tr><td width="92" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">.430"</font></td><td width="155" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">3.56"</font></td><td width="186" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">3.34"</font></td></tr><tr><td width="92" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">.431"</font></td><td width="155" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">2.18"</font></td><td width="186" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">1.87"</font></td></tr><tr><td width="92" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">.432"</font></td><td width="155" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">1.22"</font></td><td width="186" align="center"><font face="verdana,arial" size="1">1.17"</font></td></tr></table>
In that last tech note listed, tests show that with the micro-groove we achieved a 0.344" goup... nothing for anyone to sneeze at!
Also, I would ask that we please try to stay on topic in the future, and let's try to answer the original question this gentleman asked. Marlin began in the early to mid 70's with the Micro-Groove Starrbow, I'll see if I can find you a date.....
Best Regards,
Alex Stanton
<!--EDIT|Alex Stanton|Feb. 18 2002,08:26-->