I found this link that seems to answer some of the questions in this topic about carbon vs. steel and it looks like the carbon have the edge.

http://www.christensenarms.com/faq.asp

I've messed with two Christensen Arms guns (examined but not fired). The interesting thing is that they guarentee 0.5" 3 shot groups at 100 yards on some (possibly all) of their rifles. That is a hefty claim if the barrels really can't deliver the goods.

Everyone I've talked to seems to really like their CA rifle, although the cost is steep.

Yeah, I think they are the real deal. I believe carbon is the way to go but I would have to rob the piggy-bank first before I got one. A carbon barrel would look good on my sendero and shave a pound or so off to boot.

I have a Browning Abolt II Composite Stainless Stalker chambered for 7mm Rem. Mag. I get sub MOA results up to 250 yrds. You should have no problems.

Stainless tends to retain heat more than regular steel therefore it gets hotter and hotter with multiple shots therfore it get less and less accurate quicker that other barrels however this is very minimal. So it doesn't make much difference.