FJIM said:
is there any benefit to having a match barrel cryo treated?
Well, since you asked. Yes and no. Cryo treating is used by too many industries (aerospace, automotive, etc.) not to have some technical validity. The problem is, what it seems to offer has to do with machinability. Even my own gunsmith reported that barrels that had been cryo treated seemed to machine a bit easier or more uniformly than ones which hadn't. Aside from the fact that I have a problem with the "seemed" quantification, he couldn't say precisely how much better. Okay, so that's a maybe.
As for the effects on firing performance of the finished barrels, absolutely nothing, and that part I can quantify. The test I mentioned was done completely blind, with barrels from the same maker, from the same run. All were chambered consecutively, by the same smith, with the same reamer. In short, they were as identical as I could make them. I fired a series of control standards after the barrels were broken in, and two of the three were sent to two different cryo treatment facilities for treatment. When they came back, our plant engineer, Ted Lancaster, gave all three back to me for testing . I re-ran the standards (same bullet lot, same powder lot, same primers, etc.) and noted the results. I repeated the standards protocol every 1,000 rds until the barrels were shot out. In the end, I could see absolutely no significant difference in performance or longevity. Cleaning for the "standards" testing followed a strict discipline, with the barrels being given exactly the same treatment, and examined via bore scope. Again, no difference, and I couldn't have begun to have told you which was the treated barrel and which one was the control barrel. Bottom line, all the claims for increased accuracy, barrel life and easier cleaning, are hot air. I might be convinced of the better machinability the machinist spoke of, but anything after it begins to be used as a rifle barrel, nope, pure hype.