A question for you: Chrome lining...how important is it to you?

[John_Wayne777]

I have a question I'd like to pose for the savvy AR buyers here on M4C:

Suppose there was a firearms manufacturer who was considering releasing a piston-driven AR in the US market for a price of around $2,000.00. Suppose that said manufacturer was looking at ways to lower the price point somewhat and was giving serious consideration to forgoing the chrome lining of the chamber and bore of the barrel as a means of doing so.

Supposing that you were in the general market for such a product. How would the decision to skip the chrome lining affect your decision? Would you be more or less likely to purchase the rifle without the chrome lining even if it came in at a lower price?

If you really want the chrome lining, what price differential would lure you in, meaning how much is the feature worth to you?

It wouldn't be fair of me to ask the questions without giving my own answers, so here are my 2 cents on the issue:

Personally speaking I think chrome lining the bore and chamber are desirable practices. I don't know exactly how much skipping the chrome lining would save on a per-unit basis, but I'm assuming that the difference would have to be less than 100 dollars per unit.

If I'm committing in the $2,000.00 range for a rifle, I wouldn't balk at an extra 100 bucks for the chrome lining...in fact, if offered a non-chrome lined gun for $2,000.00 and a chrome lined gun for $2,100.00, I would pick the chrome lined gun every time.

Gun companies often find themselves in an internal debate about how to proceed on these types of questions...so perhaps a thread where we share our thoughts on the matter will assist those makers looking to economize and hit a lower price point understand the features we really want in a rifle.

[TOrrock]

For $2K, it damn sure needs to be chromed.

Period.

Savvy buyers won't spend their money on it unless it has a hard chrome lined chamber and bore.

[QuietShootr]

wouldn't buy it without chrome. Wouldn't even look at it without chrome. About $150 would be the cost as far as I'm concerned.

[Thomas M-4]

For $2K, it damn sure needs to be chromed.

Period.

Savvy buyers won't spend their money on it unless it has a hard chrome lined chamber and bore.

Templar said it better than I ever could.
Putting out a piston driven AR which pistons are sold under the pretense of being more reliable in adverse conditions then skipping on the chromelined bore and chamber which has a proven record of improving reliability in adverse condition :confused: :rolleyes:is well FUBAR if I spend $2000 on a combat rifle the damn bore is going to be coated with something chrome lining or nitride .

[Heavy Metal]

No chrome would be a total dealbreaker unless the bore had some other kind of coating/treatment at least the equal of chrome.

[RogerinTPA]

For $2K, it damn sure needs to be chromed.

Period.

Savvy buyers won't spend their money on it unless it has a hard chrome lined chamber and bore.

LOL! You got that right!

There are way more quality options, out there for less....With Chrome.

A company who's willing to make cuts on a basic essential part, that is offered by the majority manufacturers out there, is doomed to failure.

[8200rpm]

Putting out a piston driven AR which pistons are sold under the pretense of being more reliable in adverse conditions then skipping on the chrome-lined bore and chamber which has a proven record of improving reliability in adverse conditions :confused:

Agree 100%. It would be a totally idiotic move.

They might as well use .223 Remington chambers while they're at it.

[subzero]

Savvy buyers won't spend their money on it unless it has a hard chrome lined chamber and bore.

The thought that comes to my mind: if they didn't chrome line it, regardless of the price, they must not know much about hard use ARs. So why would I buy their upper, regardless of other features, at any price?

[bkb0000]

i really dont think Xing the chrome would save even $100.. for instance, if you go to the cheaper gun barrel manufacturers, who offer chromed or un-chromed, the price difference is usually only $50 or so. making a ball-park guess, knowing what i know about markups in my own business and manufacturing in general, i'd guess, based on the $50 difference, it only costs them $25-$35 or so to chrome their barrels. the more barrels getting treated, obviously, the better the deal... to chrome ONE barrel would probably cost somebody $150-200.

this as my starting point, i wouldn't purchase an unchromed weapon.

[William B.]

They talk up the piston AR actions as 1 million mrb failures and now they're considering releasing one with a shorter barrel life... so in a way the weapon will outlast itself. I would buy a non-chromed AK for $600 before I would buy that.

[exiledtoIA]

If they are not going to chrome it, I have to wonder what other
shortcuts they took, and didn't see fit to mention.

[Adam]

I would pass on a gun with no chrome linning. I don't get so wappped around the axle about barrel steel, however. I would go for a 1/7 twist, 5.56 chamber ,chromed lined barrel made from 4140 instead of 4150 cmv 1159, if it was a significant difference. The problem is all the 4140 barrels tend to be 1/9 with .223 chambers.

[Yojimbo]

I wouldn't even consider a fighting gun of that price without a chromelined barrel. However, the real deal breaker for me is that it would be a "piston-driven AR"...;)

[An Undocumented Worker]

I would accept a melonite treate barrel in place of a chrome lined barrel, infact I would even prefer that option instead of chrome. Can it be done for less than chrome?

[geminidglocker]

I would'nt buy without chrome. Regardless of price.

[Harv]

Lack of chrome has historically always been a bad thing in weapons development..
Hard lessons that were born in blood.. I will not own an AR that is not...

[m4fun]

They would have to be giving it away without chrome.

Actually I got a really cheapo upper with a bottom-feeder 16" chrome-moly(non-chrome lined) just for the upper reciever for another build. The barrel I figure I could use as a blaster for burning out doing FA fire in an MGI quick-change upper.

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

They would have to have a better explanation that cost savings. Like they had some crazy high-quality steel or treatment that was better.


They might offer a non chromed one a bit cheaper.

[SGT D USMC]

This question was already brought up. By Robert Macnamera, and his boys in his think tank. The cost was less than$5.00 at that time for chromed bore and chamber and the cost of the m-16 then was not much more than $100. stoner had designed the rifle with the crome.

If I wanted to build an ar for mainly for accuracy I would probably pick a barrel that was not crome plated.

_________________________________
he went into younder village and never returned

[Failure2Stop]

Putting out a piston driven AR which pistons are sold under the pretense of being more reliable in adverse conditions then skipping on the chromelined bore and chamber which has a proven record of improving reliability in adverse condition. . .

Agreed.

The only way I would be interested is if the barrel is stainless or some other treatment to the chamber/bore was to be done.

As it is I would rather have a good DI AR with a chrome lined barrel than a piston anything without.

[Quib]

I would accept a Melonite treated barrel in place of a chrome lined barrel, in fact I would even prefer that option instead of chrome.

I’ve read that Melonite is supposedly harder than chrome. Anyone have first-hand experience with it?

I’m about to begin a range review of an upper that is Melonite coated, and this will be my first experience with it.

[ABNAK]

I will NOT own ANY modern military-style firearm that is not chrome lined. Period. AR's, AK's, FAL's, SKS's, M14's, etc. Keep your non-chrome lined garbage, which always seems to be marketed as "match grade" if it isn't chromed. :rolleyes: REAL match grade has Shilen or Hart or Douglas, et al on it. Not some cheap-ass chrome moly shit.

I would consider an exception for some of these newer finishes like melonite or nitride, etc.



***above does not apply to Garands, carbines, Springfield 1903's, etc.

[sff70]

I work in a rainy, salt air environment and have on occaisions been out in the rain with my rifle for hours.

Chrome lining is important to me not only for the corrosion resistance, but also for the ease in extraction.

I would not buy a duty/social AR that lacks chrome.

[Mjolnir]

I have a question I'd like to pose for the savvy AR buyers here on M4C:

Suppose there was a firearms manufacturer who was considering releasing a piston-driven AR in the US market for a price of around $2,000.00. Suppose that said manufacturer was looking at ways to lower the price point somewhat and was giving serious consideration to forgoing the chrome lining of the chamber and bore of the barrel as a means of doing so.

Supposing that you were in the general market for such a product. How would the decision to skip the chrome lining affect your decision? Would you be more or less likely to purchase the rifle without the chrome lining even if it came in at a lower price?

If you really want the chrome lining, what price differential would lure you in, meaning how much is the feature worth to you?

It wouldn't be fair of me to ask the questions without giving my own answers, so here are my 2 cents on the issue:

Personally speaking I think chrome lining the bore and chamber are desirable practices. I don't know exactly how much skipping the chrome lining would save on a per-unit basis, but I'm assuming that the difference would have to be less than 100 dollars per unit.

If I'm committing in the $2,000.00 range for a rifle, I wouldn't balk at an extra 100 bucks for the chrome lining...in fact, if offered a non-chrome lined gun for $2,000.00 and a chrome lined gun for $2,100.00, I would pick the chrome lined gun every time.

Gun companies often find themselves in an internal debate about how to proceed on these types of questions...so perhaps a thread where we share our thoughts on the matter will assist those makers looking to economize and hit a lower price point understand the features we really want in a rifle.
If the barrel is chromoly and isn't either hard chrome plated or nitrocarburized surface conversion (to a case depth equal to hard chrome plating depth) I'd not touch it. Period.

How much "extra" would I be willing to pay? Nothing, really. It would have to be offered to me hard chrome lined or nitrocarburized or, preferably for those of us aware and anal about such things, both. I'd pay $50 to have both done. I have no interest in a non-hardened barrel and chamber in the type of rifle you're speaking about.

[K.L. Davis]

Given what it actually costs to chrome barrels, they would not be saving much by skipping it... unless they are buying very short numbers, the "savings" would not be enough to even talk about.

As already stated a few times, at that price point a chromed bore is expected.

Other platings that folks are playing with have been done in the past... but then, the piston operated uppers actually nothing new either.

[godsmack]

A nonchromed barrel is not anything I would be interested in, especially at that price. Even for a cheaper DI rifle I would not be interested. I look at it this way, a decent barrel is going to cost $200 plus. If you chrome line the barrel you will double the life of the barrel and chrome lining is much cheaper than $200.

[Quentin]

I would expect a chrome lined barrel in a 1K rifle so can't imagine buying a 2K combat AR that was not. Can't come up with one now but there'd have to be a real good reason.

[Dave_M]

I wouldn't even consider a fighting gun of that price without a chromelined barrel. However, the real deal breaker for me is that it would be a "piston-driven AR"...;)

I completely agree. ;)

[freakshow10mm]

I'm more turned off by the piston system than lack of chrome lined chamber/bore. I have had several semi autos that had no chrome tube. Never had any reliability issues with them.

Run chrome in machine guns, standard in semi auto.

[godsmack]

I'm more turned off by the piston system than lack of chrome lined chamber/bore. I have had several semi autos that had no chrome tube. Never had any reliability issues with them.

Run chrome in machine guns, standard in semi auto.

I agree about a piston for an AR, but IMO its not just a matter of enhanced reliability which you do get, for the little extra it costs for a chrome bore over a nonchromed bore, you can almost double the life of your barrel, the most expensive part of the rifle. And with the advances in manufactoring the chrome does not take away accuracy like it maybe once did.

[macman37]

Personally I think chrome lining is a "nice to have" but it isn't the end-all, be-all.

[graffex]

Go chrome, or go home.

[ilike9s]

I'm a lazy gun cleaner so I say go chrome or go home with a rusted out barrel.

[ABNAK]

I'm a lazy gun cleaner so I say go chrome or go home with a rusted out barrel.

At least you're honest. That's the first step to recovery. ;)

[the_fallguy]

The lack of a chrome lining would be a deal killer for me.

[SPDGG]

The lack of a chrome lining would be a deal killer for me. +1, CL or Its a No Go.

[rob_s]

IIRC companies that offer(ed) barrels both chrome-lined and not get less than a $50/gun premium for the chrome-lined version.