View Full Version : Battlecomp Finish?
Jus curious how the finish is holding up on your Battlecomps? I have one on my 11.5" BCM with 6K or so rounds through it and the finish has worn off of much of it. My preferred cleaning method has always been more of a wipe down and re lube followed by a few passes with a bore snake through the barrel. I can't really say I ever took the time to clean my BC till a few days ago. I sprayed it with a little Remoil and wiped it down with a cloth to remove all of the carbon build up and this is what I saw.
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb244/a996hawk/2012-02-08_16-47-30_122.jpg
Not a big deal to me as I actually like the way it looks. But I was curious as to whether anyone else has had anything similar happen?
Black Oxide isn't the most durable of coatings. I've had some wear, but nothing like yours. Lower count, longer barrel.
Mine is almost there, not quite as worn off, but the edge around the front is completely gone.
In between the ports is pretty worn also.
If I miss the range for a week or two, I do the same thing and wipe it down with some Hoppes
Not a big deal to me as I actually like the way it looks. But I was curious as to whether anyone else has had anything similar happen?
I note the same thing - loss of finish after 5000-6000 rounds. I gotta believe it's a tough environment to keep a finish on. I just ignore it. It's a sign that the rifle gets used.
I spray coatings for a living, and black oxide is used because its cost effective... As stated above, thats a very tough enviroment for coatings, but there are plenty of high heat ceramics that will stay if its important to you.
I spray coatings for a living, and black oxide is used because its cost effective... As stated above, thats a very tough enviroment for coatings, but there are plenty of high heat ceramics that will stay if its important to you.
Would there be a functional reason to have it ceramic coated?
Would there be a functional reason to have it ceramic coated?
yeah. To ease the function in my brain to have a aesthetically nice looking rifle. LOL :jester:
outrider627
02-13-12, 15:40
I got one of the blem BattleComps from about a year ago. It came looking like the one in OP, but not as bad. It never bothered me. Glad to know I saved $50 and it would've looked the same in the end anyway.
Run em hard and put em away wet... :big_boss:
I'm going to be selling some 'Like New" Battle Comps soon when I get a supressor so keep a look out in the classified section....They will be a bargin.
Hmac, no, not in my opinion. I feel its a cosmetic issue only. I don't have the spec on the BC, but I would guess the steel will stand alone just fine. If their comps were soft, I think it would show more than finish wear by the 5k mark. BTW, this is speculation on my part.
I have used a high heat ceramic that takes FA just fine, and standard H series cerakote seems to handle most mag-fed FA, though they don't spec it to do so.
I've got 1.5k through one and its holding up pretty good. Finish at the end is only faded slightly. If you're worried about the finish that much, a cheap solution would be some duplacolor engine paint, don't get too much in the holes.
Yeah that hi temp engine paint works well...that's what I used to clean up the finish from the install which can be seen in the pic. Not worried Bout the finish wearing off....was just curious about it
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
The finish is on there to protect the metal...it really should not wear off like that...I realize there is a certain popularity to having your AR look like it has been in combat and showing the signs of real use...but wouldn't a parkerized coating hold up better and wear with the rest of your rifle...I mean the things cost 150 bucks...so why would they try to skimp on finish? :nono:
MidwestRookie
02-13-12, 17:59
The finish is on there to protect the metal...it really should not wear off like that...I realize there is a certain popularity to having your AR look like it has been in combat and showing the signs of real use...but wouldn't a parkerized coating hold up better and wear with the rest of your rifle...I mean the things cost 150 bucks...so why would they try to skimp on finish? :nono:
Maybe a better finish would mean it cost 180 or 200 instead?
outrider627
02-13-12, 18:55
The finish is on there to protect the metal...it really should not wear off like that...I realize there is a certain popularity to having your AR look like it has been in combat and showing the signs of real use...but wouldn't a parkerized coating hold up better and wear with the rest of your rifle...I mean the things cost 150 bucks...so why would they try to skimp on finish? :nono:
BCs can't be parkerized, they're made from stainless steel.
Well that changes the equation...:help:
If the finish on mine gets too bad, I'll just have it bead blasted. That's another finish BCE offers
Makes me wonder how cerakote does on muzzle devices. I'm new to how that stuff holds up.
Paladin801
02-14-12, 00:21
Wahoo95, I would suggest giving Battlecomp a shout and ask them personally about the surface covering wear. Just my suggestion. I always like to go this route first and have had success with issues or questions. Great bunch of folks at BCE. PRGGodfather from BCE is on here a lot and a site sponsor. Let us know what they say. sales@battlecomp.com (650) 678-0778 I would say if I get one, I'd give it a good bath first, then treat it with FL, but God only knows what kind crap that would start. Might not hurt though.
Is black oxide similar to Melonite?
Is black oxide similar to Melonite?
No its not the same.....Melonite is much tougher finish.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
SpyderMan2k4
02-14-12, 12:50
To echo others, mine doesn't look as worn as that, however I also have a lower round count and longer barrel.
Cesiumsponge
02-14-12, 12:53
The only reason they even have a coating is because enough people complain about the lightness of bead blasted stainless steel so they play to market demands. Price isn't going to jump up that much with different coatings but its not worth the hassle. I suspect the most vocal opponents to finish wear don't run 6000 rounds through their rifles and those that do couldn't care less with some wear marks.
yhmspecter
02-14-12, 13:02
The only reason they even have a coating is because enough people complain about the lightness of bead blasted stainless steel so they play to market demands. Price isn't going to jump up that much with different coatings but its not worth the hassle. I suspect the most vocal opponents to finish wear don't run 6000 rounds through their rifles and those that do couldn't care less with some wear marks.
Exactly how I feel.. Those of us who use the gun for its purpose don't really care what the finish looks like.. It just goes to show you enjoy shooting your rifle.And you take your self defense and training seriously. Not saying that those who care what your gun looks like don't take self defense seriously.
I just look at guns as what they are guns. And if they get scratched or worn then so be it.
Cesiumsponge
02-14-12, 13:32
I don't fault anyone who wants to complain about finish durability since they paid for the item However given it is stainless and coated, this was merely done to cosmetic reasons, not a practical reason. If enough people complain, Battlecomp will probably revise it, but I don't think there will be enough folks with high round counts who find this an issue. Oddly enough, folks with the naked KAC triple taps were trying hard, on purpose, to dump ammo to get theirs looking "worn in" :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.