It is all B####cks most of the time! OK so carbon fire is stronger per given dimension but the trouble is that most manufactures reduce the thickness of the barrel walls to reduce either weight or cost, so any strength advantage is lost. Further, the very thinness of many modern barrels can be a massive danger if is is subject to damage through either long term water ingress or heavy impact. Imagine the consequences of barrel failure on a loaded gun! It has happened.
Realistically, what is the big advantage in the water? The true leveller in the water is buoyancy, like it or lump it. If a gun as a higher mass and a lower volume than water it will sink no matter what it is made of. Gun design is the important thing, not what it is made of.
JT, that's a good question! I swore I'd never buy a carbon gun even though I now own one. My honest answer is that I think many people want them because they are fashionable or they think that hi-tech is the way to go to make them a better spearo. However some of the newer shapes that are being produced in guns would be very hard and expensive to make out of aluminium so if you subscribe to the super maneuverable gun theory then they could make sense but to my mind it makes sense to increase the volume and mass and for that wood is the better choice. Each to their own I guess.
__________________
|
