Quote Originally Posted by scottryan View Post
Because a surface treatment that is microns thick cannot resist a jet flame into steel which is a conductor of heat.

I don't need to explain anything further, its simple science.
Then show us the science. Show us substanial proof that one wears better or worse then the other with similar use and under similar conditions.

Do you realize how stupid your argument is? Its like saying you can't take a blow torch and cut through a Glock slide because it has a melonite/tenifer treatment.
lulz....wait, what? <looks around> My argument? Stupid? I'm not the one hooting and hollering without any facts. Matter of fact, I havn't made any statements one way or the other on this subject.

All I did was ask you to back up what you're saying with facts, numbers, real data that can be verified.

You still have yet to do that.

Barrel treatments are not put on to prevent throat erosion. They are put there to prevent the rifling from wearing out due to bullets traveling down the bore.
So give us the stats. Chrome lining thickness, nitrocarburiding depth, rockwell hardness of each, corrosion resistance, etc.

Shouldn't be that hard. You seem to "feel" very strongly about this so you must have some facts on your side that justify such a strong emotional response.

What would you rather have?

1. A barrel that is more resistant to throat erosion (which is something I can realistically measure with a throat erosion gauge) which will maintain is accuracy over a longer period of time and be more resilient to heavy amounts of rapid fire.

2. A barrel that has a theoretical unproven life, with an amount of ammunition that costs 100 times more than what the gun costs in the first place.
Prove that one is better then the other with something other then conjecture. You say you "can" measure thoat erosion, so have you measured throat erosion on a melonite treated barrel and a chrome lined barrel with similar round counts? You "can", but have you?

So provide some facts already.

C'mon, you can do that, can't you?


Also, the cost of the ammunition is irrelevant. HK did that when they did the G36 desert tests. It's not uncommon for manufacturers to test the crap out of their newest guns. And don't forget that S&W's price on that ammo is far less then yours or ours.

You gotta come up with a better argument then that. As well as some facts.