Frank Briggs
32 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
I've been reading a lot on this forum.
I've noticed that there are a lot of people that don't like the QLA muzzle.
They post lots of stuf...
"QLA makes it hard to get the patch right"
"Qla hurts accuracy"
"Qla is a gimmick, and does nothing".
Then, I read about coned muzzles.
"Coned muzzels make it easy to load"
"Coned muzzels make it easy to get the patch in"
"Coned muzzels help accuracy"
Now, wait a minute.
Isn't a coned muzzel and a QLA muzzel just different ways of doing the same thing?
Don't they both take the barrel out to groove diameter?
Isn't a QLA pretty much a coned muzzle that's recessed a little bit?
I don't get it!
Can somebody shed some light on this for me?
I've noticed that there are a lot of people that don't like the QLA muzzle.
They post lots of stuf...
"QLA makes it hard to get the patch right"
"Qla hurts accuracy"
"Qla is a gimmick, and does nothing".
Then, I read about coned muzzles.
"Coned muzzels make it easy to load"
"Coned muzzels make it easy to get the patch in"
"Coned muzzels help accuracy"
Now, wait a minute.
Isn't a coned muzzel and a QLA muzzel just different ways of doing the same thing?
Don't they both take the barrel out to groove diameter?
Isn't a QLA pretty much a coned muzzle that's recessed a little bit?
I don't get it!
Can somebody shed some light on this for me?