Of course, some shoot like [bleep], and those get replaced.
If a barrel shoots well, very well, and plenty for it's intended purpose, wtf does it matter whether it's a Savage factory barrel, or a custom barrel (like a Spencer)?
Perhaps I have completely missed the entire point of this thread, but what I thought was being pointed out by the Pro-high end barrel crowd was that going high end to begin with eliminates a whole bunch of risk.
Sure, the difference between a top quality barrel and a medicore barrel may be significant to some. I think that is a false economy.
Regardless of how you do it, you are going to have a minimum of $1500 into any rifle with a custom tube, Douglas or otherwise. $100 is beans when compared to the big picture.
I am sure that Douglas is great about replacing a dud barrel, but who is going to replace the cost of having it fitted and chambered? Can the smith really be held responsible for bearing the cost of putting it back on? He didn't make the bum barrel, nor would he have any way to checking to ensure it wasn't bum before he put it on. Someone has to bear the cost of putting the replacement barrel on.
By starting with the best barrel you can buy, and spending the extra few bucks to get it, you minimize the risk of a bad barrel by a huge amount. That doesn't even take into account the extra time and effort Douglas barrels take in the cleaning department (at least mine have). Nor does it factor in the fact that Douglas barrels don't last as long as some other top brands (at least mine and a handful of others I am familiar with didn't).
Bottom line is that you can buy the best barrel in the world for less than $300.00. When compared with the total cost of a build, why skimp on a few bucks?
The biggest difference in accuracy isn't the barrel, but the guy behind the trigger. Fix those problems first, then worry about something else.
Taking the rifle as a unit unto itself, and removing human interference, the barrel is probably the single most important factor in accuracy. A rifle is never going to shoot better than it's mechanical limitations, so it boggles my mind why one would intentionally set a lower limit for potential accuracy by going with a less than exceptional barrel.
David Tubb pretty much has the "nut behind the trigger" figured out, and I can guaran-damn-tee you that he would not be in the position that he is if he'd run sub-optimal equipment for his entire career.
Handicapping one's self with sub-optimal equipment strikes me as a perfect way to lengthen the learning curve. Start with good stuff, and it is almost silly how easy this can be.
